Wikipedia

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 202

< Talk:Donald Trump
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Babysharkboss2 in topic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2025
Archive 195←Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205

More Sources Needed

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We need some more sources for some of this info to be acceptable. Please look into the following, and if no reputable sources can be found, it is necessary to delete all these instances:

- Terms like "authoritarian," "fascist," or "self-coup" must be attributed: e.g., "Scholars have described his actions as..."
- Allegations (e.g. shell companies, mafia ties, influence over unions) need sources, not implication.
- Subjective assessments (e.g. being ranked among the “worst presidents”) must cite reputable historians, surveys, or academic consensus. BeProper (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Those are already sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
They're all attributed and sourced, except for "shell company" (that sentence says "is alleged to have been a shell company", per the New York Times) and "influence over unions" which is something the article doesn't say. Or maybe you're referring to this reliably sourced sentence about Trump's former fixer Roy Cohn: Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connections controlled construction unions, the only mention of "Mafia" in the article. Scholarly rankings: we cite C-SPAN and Siena College's surveys of presidential scholars and historians which are used in all articles on U.S. presidents. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up WP-wide. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
They're sourced. Do you have any sources that may contradict these (very much sourced) statements? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Criminal convictions in the infobox

Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Original heading: "Infobox should list criminal convictions". ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, I don't see his criminal convictions listed in the infobox, how come? 85.81.46.45 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

it's not what he's most notable for EvergreenFir (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
To others: Per my editsum, consensus 66 does not apply provided {{infobox criminal}} is not considered. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
The conviction is adequately explained in the body; a mention in the infobox would explain nothing and would be indistinguishable from the infoboxes for Bernie Madoff and John Wayne Gacy (who would have been unknown if not for their crimes). It's also mentioned in the lead. In the spirit of current consensus items 66 and 69, I oppose anything about convictions in the infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
If you look in the second infobox under the main Infobox, then there is a tab titled "Legal proceedings" which you can click on and which covers that. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
That's a navbox, not an infobox. But yeah, that's yet another place where we already report the convictions. Might as well rename the article to Donald Trump (convicted felon). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Other editors may share your sentiment about these types of reports in the article; if you have a list of your top five edits in the current article which cross this line, then you might list them here for other editors to examine. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
It's possible to add the felony conviction and sentence to Trump's "officeholder" infobox by using a child module, and it was done here and reverted here. I argued against using infobox "criminal" in the RfC for #66 because the felony conviction isn't the main reason Trump is notable, but is it less noteworthy than his alma mater, other political affiliations, relatives (when it also mentions parents, wives, and children)? Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that he's not most notable for being a convicted felon, but I can kind of understand the desire to include his convictions, because one of the things he is notable for is being a president who happens to be a convicted felon (or a felon who happens to be a president - take your pick). Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Dont add to the infobox. It's not what he's most notable for. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2025

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

add that Donald Trump is the second US President to serve two non-consecutive terms, the first being Grover Cleveland. SousasFinest (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2025

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

state funeral of former president Jimmy Carter]], where Trump’s interactions with Mike Pence and Barack Obama received significant media attention.[1][2] 173.165.17.93 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Unsure what change you want made, nor am I sure this is not wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Temporary policies should be portrayed as temporary

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lead says:

During his first presidency, Trump imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, expanded the Mexico–United States border wall, and enforced a family separation policy on the border.

That’s accurate as to the border wall, but the other two things were soon halted by Trump himself. If you follow the links, the lead sentence for family separation says, “implemented in the United States from 2017 to 2018.”

As for travel ban, the link is to WP’s Executive Order 13679 which says in its opening paragraph, “it was in effect from January 27, 2017, until March 6, 2017, when it was superseded by Executive Order 13780….” If you follow that last link, it says in the opening paragraph, “placed a 90-day restriction on it entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days.”

So, I agree with how the present lead characterizes building the wall, which happened throughout the first term (and the second). But the other two things were not. So I suggest a very small tweak:

During his first presidency, Trump temporarily imposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, expanded the Mexico–United States border wall, and enforced a family separation policy on the border until he ended it.

Thoughts? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Nah, we're good, don't need all the details in the lead. I fixed the wording in the body. The travel ban for people from Syria was indefinite, for people from the other six countries was for four months. That included green card holders, students and others with visas, and pre-approved refugees. He was forced by the courts to make several changes. Public opinion on crying toddlers in wire mesh cages forced him to change the family separations policy, and, AFAIK, due to lack of proper record keeping some of the kids were never reunited with their parents. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago29 comments9 people in discussion

Initially called "Rewriting Legal Issues in Lead" Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I am implementing a bold edit and opening this discussion to find a consensus to significantly improve the lead paragraph on Trump's legal issues. It is a long paragraph in the lead, but only four paragraphs in the body. This does not abide by WP:SUMMARY or WP:DUE. Firstly, Trump's victory over Kamala Harris relates far more to his second presidency than to his legal issues, so I moved that sentence accordingly to the succeeding paragraph, and added the extremely DUE context that Biden withdrew from the race. Second off, Trump's civil cases have received minimal coverage in reliable sources relative to his criminal cases, so they do merit mention inclusion in the lead at all. As for Trump's criminal cases, reliable sources significantly covered Trump's legal issues during Biden's presidency, but that coverage was far less than how much reliable sources covered Trump in general during his first presidency. Yet Trump's criminal cases during Biden's presidency receive around the same weight as Trump's first presidency in the lead of this article. Hence I rewrote the lead paragraph on Trump's legal issues to abide by Wikipedia policy, removing the civil cases and trimming some specifics of each criminal case. However, I also added a bit of context to Trump's conviction and Georgia case, because the current wording implies that Trump was an incumbent US President when he was convicted, and implies that the Georgia case is still being prosecuted.

Current wording:

Proposed wording:

The lead and the body of this article are more bloated than any other article on Wikipedia, so expanding them is not an option. There has not been an RfC on this topic, so I will also create one if necessary. Bill Williams 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The lead and the body of this article are more bloated than any other article on Wikipedia - Citation needed. I didn't have to look very far to find a slightly longer article, First presidency of Donald Trump. Beware of SWAGs.
Otherwise, I usually like reduction in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Bloated is relative, not based on absolute length. Trump's presidency has much more coverage than Trump himself, so it will have an absolutely longer article. However, this article on Trump himself is relatively more bloated, since many details in this article should solely be included in the article on his presidency. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
If you put it that way, I agree. That's consistent with what some of us have been saying for years. Sadly, a consensus that would eliminate the need to fight the same battle for every little issue has been elusive. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Reverted. Juries found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and for business fraud with extensive coverage in media, and he's still on the hook for around $90 million in the former and $350 million in the latter case (both plus interest). Just as in the lead mention of Trump's blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, your argument for their removal is "not enough material in the body to make it lead-worthy". At the same time, you added a play-by-play of how Harris got to be the Democratic candidate to the lead, something we don't mention in the body of our "bloated" article. Your version of the criminal cases is not an improvement. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Just as in the lead mention of Trump's blanket pardons for the January 6 rioters, your argument for their removal is "not enough material in the body to make it lead-worthy": I'd like to note that my argument won that RfC, and your argument lost, so I don't know why you are bringing this up now. I also didn't add a "play-by-play" of how Harris got to be the Democratic candidate," I added literally five words, because otherwise an uneducated reader will question "why was Harris the nominee if Biden was the previous president and ran in 2024?" And regardless, the 2024 election does not belong in the paragraph about his legal issues. But yes, I will add that to the body instead, since nothing should be in the lead without significant coverage in the body. As for what you said about his civil judgements, your beliefs do not have any significance for this article, because DUE is determined by coverage from reliable sources. And reliable sources' coverage of his civil judgements has been negligible compared to literally everything else in the lead, including his criminal charges, so the civil judgements don't belong in the lead. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I added Biden's withdrawal to the body. Only three sentences, and every other president's article's election sentence has at least a sentence on their opponents. This one requires three because no incumbent president withdrew from an election since LBJ 56 years earlier, so it's necessary context for readers (as determined by the significant coverage of the withdrawal by reliable sources). Bill Williams 18:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
uneducated reader - huh. We didn't mention Biden's 2024 campaign (and we still don't because I reverted that off-topic addition to the "bloated" body, as well). Why would a reader wonder about somebody other than the predecessor running in the election? It happens frequently, e.g., at the end of the second term of every president, also e.g. Lyndon B. Johnson. And if someone does wonder, they can click the name of the predecessor. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
reliable sources' coverage of his civil judgements has been negligible. E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump cites 266 sources, New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization cites 450. Sounds like a lot of attention to me. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Incumbent presidents withdrawing from their reelection campaign doesn't "happen frequently", it only happened twice after the 22nd amendment: 1952 and 1968 (more than 55 and 70 years ago respectively). It wasn't Biden's second term, so those presidents are irrelevant. And readers cannot "click the name of the predecessor" because Biden's name is mentioned nowhere in the 2024 election section of this article. You expect a reader to scroll way up to the top of this article, then click on Biden's name, then read multiple paragraphs, before finally learning that Biden withdrew? Bill Williams 18:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say "withdrew". Why would anyone coming to this page to read about Trump's life look for info on Biden? Predecessor and successor are always mentioned in the infobox. If anyone wants to know more about the 2024 race than the info we provide in our "bloated" article, they can click the link to that article, in the body AND in the lead because the new policy is to link everything that can be linked. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Most readers check this article to learn about everything regarding Trump, not just "Trump's life", whatever that means. Many readers check this article and see the election section and go to that section to learn about the election. The section leaves out by far the biggest thing that happened in the election (Biden withdrawing), so a reader is going to be completely misled as to what happened during that election if they read this article. You're resorting to whataboutisms about how the election article talks about it, but my whole point is that this article has a lengthy 2024 election section and therefore can include a few sentences on Biden's withdrawal. Bill Williams 01:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
So "bloated" is relative? by far the biggest thing is conjecture, i.e., your opinion. And the many readers going to the election section will see the link to the main article they can click if they want to know more than our summary-level section provides. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I already said that "bloated" is relative. Adding three important sentences to a lengthy section is not making it more bloated. And "by far the biggest thing" is not conjecture; it takes a few seconds to check Google and see that Biden's poor debate performance, withdrawal from the campaign, and age and health concerns was the most discussed issue regarding the 2024 election from the end of June to the start of November. Almost every reliable source states that Kamala Harris lost primarily due to the negative focus on Biden, irrespective of Harris and Trump's policy proposals and campaigns. Bill Williams 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
current wording implies that Trump was an incumbent US President when he was convicted - nope. It says "convicted in 2024". implies that the Georgia case is still being prosecuted — we say "is pending". It's paused at the moment pending a court decision on Trump's motion to remove Willis from the prosecution, but it hasn't been dismissed. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Trump was elected president again in 2024, and plenty of readers do not realize that presidents are inaugurated in January of the following year. As for the Georgia case, it was paused indefinitely, and every reliable source says that it will almost certainly remained paused throughout his presidency. "Is pending" misleads readers into thinking it will continue at some point soon. I simply corrected the wording to "paused indefinitely" because it's accurate and it's the wording that reliable sources use. Bill Williams 17:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
The Trump article as a whole could use a better policy for including law suit coverage especially for results; if the results are being excluded from the article then there is little hope of adequately summarizing them in the lede. I'd tried to bring 4 results of legal cases which have been decided in court into the article in early July which was reverted for this: . Its worth discussing and coming up with a better policy for how legal cases are edited/removed from the main Trump article. Bill Williams may also have something to say about the inclusion of the speculative Epstein material which still awaits the release of presently sealed court documents but still receives a full section of coverage in the main article for Trump. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Support Bill's changes. They clearly rationalise things. Ernest is also correct. If incremental improvements like these keep getting shot down for no good reason, this article will remain low quality. Riposte97 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
You clearly aren't opposing my proposal, because I still included plenty about Trump's felony indictments. I just made the language more clear on the felony indictments and removed the mention of Trump's civil charges because they have seen far less coverage than Trump's criminal charges from reliable sources. I also made the election part go in the paragraph about his second administration, since his election relates more to his second administration than to his felony indictments. Whether or not Biden's withdrawal should be included is a different story, but the 2024 election should clearly be its own sentence in the lead, so it's asinine that currently it is only in a sentence about his criminal prosecutions. Bill Williams 01:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Asinine — huh. Should clearly be its own sentence: why? He won the election, and we mention it chronologically in between the lawsuits, indictments, and convictions and the penalty-free discharge and the dismissals without prejudice. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
So you think that Trump's victory in the 2024 election, which gave him a second presidency, does not belong in the paragraph about his second presidency? You think that it makes more sense to readers if Trump's 2024 election victory is mentioned in the middle of a paragraph about his civil judgements and criminal indictments? I mean seriously, the articles of all 44 US presidents have a separate sentence for each their elections, except for Washington, who has one sentence mentioning both elections. But as always, you'd prefer we give Trump's article special treatment (or especially negative) to frame the 2024 election in the lead of this article as being all about Trump's civil and criminal trials. Bill Williams 18:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
The two issues in this section (legal discussion and/or election discussion) might be better separated and a new thread started for updating the current section in the article titled "2024 Presidential election". That section is not very well written and possibly you have improved wording which you could present for other editors to comment upon for improving that section. You could start a new thread about it on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

50% tariff on Brasil

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. In the article's introduction, in the fifth paragraph, it says: "He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries, including large tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico." Please add Brazil to this list, as this person imposed a 50% tariff on Brazilian goods, higher than the tariffs imposed on several countries.--Agent010 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Lead follows body. Body does not mention Brazil. Please provide reliable sources if you want to add content to the body. If that were successful, inclusion in the lead would be a separate question (although it would make sense to me). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Well, since I can't edit the article, I will provide some sources here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (it was endorsed [again] today that US tariffs will take effect on August 1).--Agent010 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Our article currently mentions only the three biggest trading partner of the U.S. Details can be found at Tariffs in the second Trump administration; the threatened 50% tariff on imports from Brazil is mentioned in July–September 2025. This is all still WP:NOTNEWS; the legality of the tariffs is being challenged in court, and maybe Trump will reconsider if someone tells him his MAGA base drinks orange juice, too, and won't want the price to double. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
I thought this article [Donald Trump] mentioned "large tariffs" in general, not necessarily just the US's three largest trading partners, since the tariff for Mexico is 30% and for Canada: 35%, while for Brazil it is 50%.--Agent010 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
To be fair it is widely known that the 50% tariffs are happening on Brazil it’s worth a mention and the backstory of it is worth a mention aswell John Bois (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Secured border in January 2017- January 2020

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Early life - University of Southern California

Latest comment: 10 months ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Initial wording:

Trump considered a show business career but instead in 1964 enrolled at Fordham University

based on this Kranish/Fisher sentence: "For a time he flirted with signing up for film school at the University of California-based on his lifelong love of movies-but he enrolled instead at Fordham University because he wanted to be closer to home." "Flirted with" USC appears to be based on Trump's "Art of the deal" (see LA Times link, below), "closer to home" on what Trump told Gwenda Blair in an interview (The Trumps, pg. 239). Edited version:

Trump first considered a career as a movie producer. After the University of Southern California rejected him, he enrolled at Fordham University in 1964.

The source for "movie producer" is a 2017 article in the Fordham Observer, a student newspaper. Its author says that Trump "originally wanted to be a movie producer, according to Newsweek" and had been "rejected from the University of Southern California". Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says that post-2013 Newsweek content must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis which we can't do in this case since the author doesn't cite her specific source. According to the LA Times, Trump wrote in "Art of the deal" that he "briefly considered attending USC’s film school" but then "decided real estate was a much better business". Is it likely that Trump had the necessary portfolio of creative work (screenplays, short films, photographs, essays, attended film classes or workshops, etc.) to apply to USC School of Cinematic Arts? A rejected application, for whatever reason, by any school wouldn't appear to be noteworthy enough to make it into an encyclopedia article on Trump's life. I reverted to the initial wording. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Doctor Deep Dive. USC is not UC. Still object to any language that implies he wanted to be an actor (although he might have been a good one, being adept at pretending to be something he's not). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
No deep dive involved, just removing the tarp hiding the pile of Trump-themed books from view (wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea). My first choice is our second-to-last longstanding version: "In 1964, Trump enrolled at Fordham University." Early career aspirations according to Trump is a tad too People magazine for me. I don't know about "adept"—e.g., his persona on the Apprentice "was carefully crafted and manufactured in postproduction to feature a persona of success, leadership, and glamour, despite the raw footage of the reality star that was often 'a disaster'". Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Weird analysis, both of you. Careful Space4Time, Fordham Observer's according to Newsweek refers to "movie producer". Like the source or not, Newsweek did not cover rejection from USC, the Observer did. Because the Observer is the only source I know of for rejection I came back to revert myself (not because rejection doesn't belong here—it may have changed the course of his life). Mandruss, USC is also the University of South Carolina. Why concern us that the University of California is a different school system? Anyway, never mind. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Re this edit: Hassan is not a reliable source on Trump - see Marc Fisher's review of Hassan's book and Slate's article on Hassan (a case of if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?). The "killer" quote is from Harry Hurt III's "Lost Tycoon". According to Hurt, Fred Trump told his sons, "you are a killer, you are a king" (repeat). Killer: reporting based on Harry Hurt III's "Lost Tycoon" who wrote that Fred Trump told his sons, "You are a killer, you are a king, you are a killer, you are a king ...". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Struck duplicate content. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Trump self-aggrandizing his past in an interview is not reliable material for the article. In 1964 at the tender age of 18, a kid dreaming about being a film producer is about as lofty as my childhood dream to play center for the Chicago Cubs. Albert Ruddy worked in art direction, went to RAND, then embarked on a producer's career. David O. Selznik was in advertising. Point is that it is a career where one usually does other things first, then transitions. Or you just point a gun at someone. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Space. You are biased against expanding the section Early life and education, no? This is exactly the spot in his life where we can begin to understand Mr. Trump's behavior today. It is entirely within the scope of his biography. You guys decide to sweep his past under the rug. This is my 24 hour notice that I'll restore my edit. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that's how 24-hour BRD works. You can reinsert an edit if nobody objects to it within 24 hours of your talk page message. Both edits have already been objected to on the Talk page. You can't just reset the clock, you need to establish a consensus for reinsertion. Expanding — only if the content is due (WP:WEIGHT) and supported by reliable sources. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Space4Time3Continuum2x: You can't be seriously suggesting that Hurt's quote is better. It is way too long to include, and I notice you didn't add it. I would support a longer version in a footnote if you prefer that. I'm away from my books like Hurt for a couple weeks and was happy to find treatment of both Trump's mother and father within two pages of Hassan.
  • I have two items to add, both on Hassan's list of the pattern of authoritarians and cult leaders. (They are: his relationship with his parents, and with his church.) I don't want to follow Hassan's thesis, or even add every mark of the pattern.
  • You say Hassan is an "unreliable source" based on your reading of two book reviews. Both reviewers were over-eager to share/gossip about what they know about Hassan's Moonie background. Do our other authors disclose their pasts when they write books we accept as reliable? Do they all exceed Hassan's credentials (PhD, MA, M.Ed., LMHC, NCC)?
  • The New York Times has nothing against him, instead a Frank Rich opinion used him a source.
  • Not even the Washington Post is opposed to him. Former columnist Jennifer Rubin cited Hassan without finding a need to point at his past cult membership.
  • Reddit, my personal favorite, says he is not a quack and has the credentials to say what he says.
  • Wikipedia's own reliable sources noticeboard has discussed him at least three times. Clearly there's a problem with his job title. Nobody rejects him out of hand. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Rich and Rubin's articles are opinions, and Rich's opinion is from 1994 and cites Hassan's opinion on the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness — off-topic here. Rubin says that Hassan said to the Atlantic that Trump checked all the boxes of Hassan's "'BITE' model of cult mind control — behavior, information, thought, and emotional control". Two other opinions, the book reviews I cited, disagree. Whether or not Trumpism is a cult or exhibits cult-like behavior — what does that have to do with Trump's childhood? Hassan doesn't have any direct knowledge of any of it — is he attempting long-distance psychoanalysis? We should be sticking to verified fact. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Space, you are unfairly singling out me and this author. Nothing I wrote suggests the word cult. I'm afraid the question of Trumpism being a cult or exhibits cult-like behavior is all in your mind. Hassan isn't doing long-distance psychoanalysis but did mention the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Maybe you've confused the two. I am willing to wager that Maggie Haberman, Susanne Craig, Marc Fisher, Michael Kranish, and Gwenda Blair never set foot in the Trump home yet you recognize their biographies, and all of them attest to Fred Trump's dominating personality. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm getting a little confused here. You cited Hassan's book The Cult of Trump as the source for the material I reverted: His mother was largely inattentive; his father was a dominant force, repeatedly telling him "You are a killer..." and never to back down. Haberman, Craig, Fisher, Kranish, and Blair are journalists who have interviewed various Trumps and people associated with them (e.g., DJT's classmates). Hassan isn't a journalist and hasn't done such interviews, AFAIK. Fred Trump's authoritarian and abusive child-rearing is described at Fred_Trump#Personal_life, including the killer and king quotes, citing a USA Today article citing a NY Times preview of Michael d'Antonio's book Never enough. No shortage of sources, but is the content due here, as in "Mom inattentive, Dad an ogre, ergo Donald"? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
This is approaching the article backwards. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources, we should ensure the article summarizes the main facts about the subject as reported in reliable sources. If most mainstream sources don't mention this when discussing Trump's education, neither should the article. We can't put in every known fact about Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, The Four Deuces. I have done my best to purchase one shelf (so far) of books about Trump. This article has valued gatekeepers but they're wrong on this score. Most attempts to add to this section were met with argument, reversal, and claims that more biography of Trump's youth is WP:UNDUE. I fundamentally disagree with those assessments. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, The Four Deuces. Editors have always done things that wrong way at this article, and I strongly suspect at most political articles. They will stop doing it when it starts costing them something they value, not before. Fact of life. Don't like it? Retire or semi-retire. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Huh? The Four Deuces, who's deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources? Are most mainstream sources reporting Trump's teenage "flirting with the idea" of becoming a producer, and, if they do, are they reporting it as a main fact? Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Space4Time3Continuum2x. "is the content due here, as in "Mom inattentive, Dad an ogre, ergo Donald"? Yes, absolutely. I bet every single biography that mentions Fred mentions his influence on Donald. I'm away from my books this month so bear with my citations (I goofed on "you are a killer", I think Fred really said "be a killer".) Baker and Glasser quote Wayne Barrett, Aside from his father, Fred, Cohn was "the most important influence on his early career"[1] We give Mr. Cohn most of a whole paragraph. I don't insist on Hassan as a source but he says everything that should be here, and I don't believe Wikipedia requires reliable sources to be journalists. I propose to re-add this. Your edits would be welcome.

His mother was largely inattentive; his father was a dominant force, repeatedly telling him to be "a killer" and never to back down. Trump absorbed his colossal self-confidence from Norman Vincent Peale, pastor of his church.[2]

-SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to do more research, and close out this thread. The topic was rejected. Nobody here cares about Donald's youthful movie aspirations. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is enough interest to evade auto-archival, there is enough interest to leave it open. If you can find an uninvolved closer, that's a different matter. WP:RFCL would be overkill. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
My summary was embarrassingly wrong. Dr. Hassan isn't wrong but he gives only part of the story. I need another day at the library to right the ship. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Prior signature image used on Last Week Tonight

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The signature in question that appears to have been used.

Just more informational, doubtful this would be relevant unless an RS picked up on it. A prior signature that I vectorized was used on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver S12E18, during one of the opening segments about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Thought the signature looked familiar, you can see screen grabs from the episode here. Anyways, figured others might find it interesting... =) —Locke Cole • t • c 02:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

👍 Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Nice work! satkara❈talk 14:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Artwork by Donald Trump

Latest comment: 10 months ago12 comments10 people in discussion

Donald Trump is also a part-time artist whose works (mostly sketches of New York landmarks), have occasionally sold at auction for sizable sums of money. See , , , . These works have recently attracted a lot of attention since Trump (in response to a story about a birthday card he allegedly sent Jeffrey Epstein, which included a lewd drawing) falsely claimed that he can’t draw.

I wonder if Trump’s artistic output is notable enough to have its own article. Is anyone up to creating Artwork by Donald Trump? If not, since there are already a lot of Trump-related articles on Wikipedia, perhaps the art stuff would work better as a subsection in one of them, or even in the main biography of him (this page). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hardly WP:DUE. He doodles. It's not like he tried to have a career in art, like Hitler, or got much coverage for the art, like Dubya. Catching Donald Trump in a lie ("I never wrote a picture in my life") is just a day ending in y. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
No its not, he is not a famous artist. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I oppose a creation of such an article, as he is not notable for being an artist. This is not like Hitler and his art career because he was notable for having one. Meanwhile, Trump very much isn't known for being an artist even amongst his own supporters. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah we don't need a whole article about his amateurish doodles just because he sold one at a charity auction and later lied and said he'd never drawn anything. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
He sold more than five at auction .
Include here as:
Donald Trump >> Personal life >> Art
with Template:External media
Piñanana (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
at least five
$15,000 for a 2003 city skyline at Sotheby's New York in 2020
$4,480 for George Washington Bridge at Julien's Auctions in Los Angeles in 2019
$16,000 for a sketch of the Empire State Building at Julien's Auctions in Los Angeles in October 2017
$29,184 for 2005 sketch of the New York City skyline at Heritage Auctions, in 2017.
$20,000 work at Heritage Auctions, in Dec. 2017.
$6,875 sketch of Manhattan’s skyline at Nate D. Sanders Auctions Nov. 2017
Not Sold Sketch of the New York City Skyline, Signed and Dated 2004, at Heritage Auctions, in 2019.
Piñanana (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
$8,500 tree with dollar bills falling off of it, signed with a gold sharpie
$10,000 (sale starting soon) New York City skyline, auction for Hattie Larlham, a nonprofit foundation
Art review: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jerry-saltz-reviews-trumps-doodles.html
Piñanana (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Girl 💀 Catboy69 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean by this? GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I oppose this John Bois (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to try to make a new article if you can find the sources, but I don't think it could warrant more than a single sentence in this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2025

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You must include details about the Epstein files in this page. 2605:A601:A065:6D00:85DA:ACBC:5A0C:C5E4 (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Misuse of the WP:EDITREQ facility. Duplicates discussion elsewhere on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Early life: Norman Vincent Peale

Latest comment: 10 months ago25 comments7 people in discussion

Norman Vincent Peale has been discussed on this talk page 8 times. I haven't followed closely but think whenever he is added, somebody removes him. Maybe we can find consensus and keep a limited mention. Here's my reasoning, beyond the fact that almost every Trump biography mentions him and many describe him as a charlatan.

  • The American President: Detailed Biographies, Historical Timelines from George Washington to Joseph R. Biden, Jr. ISBN 978-1-4549-4317-4 has 16 pages about Donald Trump. Peale got one paragraph.
  • Donald Trump: 45th US President ISBN 978-1-5321-9411-5 112 page biography for children and young adults. Peale got a paragraph.
  • In the words of Kranish & Fisher, Donald Trump "echoed" Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking which has 10 steps, in his The Art of the Deal which has 11 steps.

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Can you please provide a mockup of what a mention of Peale in this article would look like? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Surely. It's been edited a tad. Here you go. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that one sentence should be fine to include in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Good. Do you mind the footnote? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Discussed on this talk page 8 times: I went through the archived discussions back to February 2024 searching for " Peale". Found three discussions (January 25, Sep–Nov 24, November 2024), not counting the brief mention towards the end of Early Live-University of California, above. See also your second and third contribution to the Sep–Nov 24 discussion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
8 times: Search for "Peale" finds him in archives 44, 53, 54, 118, 176, 183, 188 (and the index and the above section).
The search results are a bit misleading. Some of the discussions mentioned Peale in passing in a discussion about something else while one of them (March 2017/1) discussed Trump claiming his father and Peale as mentors and rejecting the suggestion that Cohn was, too. Adding and hatting the archived discussions:


Growing up, he considered two people to be his mentors. First was his father, who told him repeatedly that he was "a king" and to be "a killer" and to not back down.[1] Second, Trump was an adherent to the family's pastor, Norman Vincent Peale,[2] who preached self-confidence as the impetus for prosperity.[3][a]

  • Support as nominator. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Support since I welcome just about anything pre-2015. My bar is low for that. For that, I'm relaxing WP:WEIGHT per WP:IAR. All I need is solid sourcing, which I trust we have.
    I submit that "self-confidence" is more everyday language than "impetus" and "prosperity", so I'd remove the link per MOS:OL. But that should not impede consensus; I would still Support with the link. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - If I'm a reader, it's not enough to know he's a beast; I want to know how he got that way. I want to know him as well as our reliable sources will allow; that's what a biography is for. These insights will naturally occur mostly in Early life, with additional contributions from Cohn and perhaps one or two others that don't come to mind at the moment. We need more of this kind of thing, not less. For example, do sources tell us any things about his time at NYMA that either foretold the beast or might have shaped it? If so, they should be included in Early life. Not that we should limit that to the negative things; we should not. Positives and neutrals are equally welcome.
    Remember, unlike most of the rest of the article, Early life has no subarticle. What we include here is it for Trump, site-wide. The usual thought process does not apply. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 10:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems far too trivial to mention. Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, about 7,700 words on the two presidencies and related campaigns and elections. So far. Per WP:SIZERULE, that alone "May need to be divided or trimmed" after 300 more words are added. Our couple of intrepid aggressive trimmers did good work and then left before the job was done. But this is other stuff. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - an interesting biographical detail. Riposte97 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Veering into psychology, i.e., tracking back Trump's mental and behavioral characteristics to their presumed/alleged roots. According to niece Mary Trump, it's Trump's ceaseless quest for approval from his “sociopath” father.
    Mentors. We can't say that in Wiki voice. It's all "according to Trump"; if anyone was Trump's mentor, it was Roy Cohn whose influence on Trump is mentioned in Donald Trump#Real estate. The cited sources say that Trump claimed his father and Peale were his mentors while disclaiming Roy Cohn whose mentee he was] until Cohn got AIDS. Pg. 81 of Kranish/Fisher: Peale was the only person other his father whom Donald called a mentor (he resisted using that term for Cohn, insisting that the lawyer was "just a lawyer, a very good lawyer").
    Here's a link to an archived version of the article on the Wayback Machine. Peale is mentioned in the "Wives, siblings, and descendants" section (Peale officiated at Trump's first wedding) and in "Religion": The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale, ministered to Trump's family and mentored him until Peale's death in 1993. Trump has cited Peale and his works during interviews when asked about the role of religion in his personal life. It cites Kranish/Fisher and a Washington Post article (the link to the archived version works).
    "Adherent": he copycatted Peale's 10 rules for success (1. Picture yourself succeeding) with 11 rules in Art of the Deal (1. Think big). Haberman mentions Peale as one of a "handful of key advisers and mentors", along with George Steinbrenner, Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, party boss Meade Esposito, and Roger Stone, but she also writes that Other than his father, the most important influence on the future president was Roy Cohn, who taught him to construct an entire life around proximity to power, avoiding responsibility, and creating artifice through the media. How much of Trump's displays of brute personality have been a function of keeping people from seeing through the artifice is unknown, perhaps even to him.
    Growing up. It's unclear when Trump's parents first started attending Peale's Marble Collegiate Church. Trump was confirmed at First Presbyterian Church, Queens, in 1959 and then lived at an upstate boarding school until 1964.
    King/killer. Kranish/Fisher's source is Harry Hurt III's gossipy Lost Tycoon, as told by Trump to a former classmate who told Hurt almost 30 years after the boys graduated from NYMA. Seems a trivial detail to me, even if true.
    Kathryn Moore source: I tried to look her up, haven't found much. The preview of the book on Amazon looks and reads like a schoolbook; can't tell whether the book has notes on its sources. IMO WP:TERTIARY applies (secondary source(s) needed). Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    Mentors. We can't say that in Wiki voice. Half right. We can't say they were his mentors in wiki voice, but we can say he called them his mentors in wiki voice (with sourcing to that effect). That's what is proposed. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    He said that he had considered two people to be his mentors. He also said he graduated first in his class at Wharton and that he began his career with "a small loan of a million dollars" from his father. He's not a reliable source. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    He is not the source. The source is Kranish & Fisher 2017. Again, a source only for what he said, which is significant in a biography of him. Might as well say we can't report any of his outright lies because they weren't true.
    In the BLP for Musical Artist A, we report that Musical Artist A said that his major influences were Musical Artists B, C, D, and E. We don't attempt to analyze the truth or accuracy of that statement—that would violate WP:NOR. This is no different.
    See also consensus 40 and consensus 67. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    Is Musical Artist A known to be a habitual liar? We don't mention the vast majority of Trump's lies, outright or otherwise, at Donald Trump#False or misleading statements, and a major influence is not the same as a mentor. Whether or not the claim is significant for his WP article, is a matter of opinion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    Consensus #40 + 67: Can't be bothered to look it up, but didn't you say s.th. along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right" just recently? Rhetorical question. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Fix "#". Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
    Diminishing returns. I think you'll be out-consensused. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Support — Peale is often cited as an important influence on Trump. It was high-handed to take him out.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
    high-handed — you think it was me? Nope. Another editor removed Peale in May 2024 with the editsum "condense". The bold edit went unchallenged at a time when much content was condensed, trimmed, and removed since editors challenging bold edits are hampered by 3RR. I think the original version is preferable to the proposed one, but I may be biased. I'm pretty sure I was somewhat involved in the previous wording (I recognize the cite with the url to the Google preview of Kranish/Fisher pg. 81 at any rate; took me a while to figure out how to do that, and the preview is no longer available): The pastor at Marble, Norman Vincent Peale,[5] ministered to the family until his death in 1993.[6] Trump has described him as a mentor.[7] Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
    I made no judgement who took it out.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree 100% with Mandruss, whose comment today is well-spoken (it's way up in the first three supports). Far from "trivial", details like this begin to explain current behavior and without running into psychology. Last November, I remember Space pushing hard against expansion of §Early life. Responding to Space's comments:
    • swapped out Kathryn Moore (yes, her book is a tertiary source, thank you) for Timothy L. O'Brien who is unassailably a journalist (and associate of Wayne Barrett).
    • moved the para down chronologically because we have a twenty year span. I suspect that Fred was first to follow Peale, whose famous book came out in 1952 when DJT was 6 years old. DJT moved to Manhattan in 1971.
    • As far as Roy Cohn goes, I negotiated a couple sentences with Nikkimaria, adding to what was here. We call him a mentor, too, even if DJT didn't in his in his interview with Kranish & Fisher. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
    What do you mean by negotiated a couple sentences with Nikkimaria? Some place other than this talk page? Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
    Two of the following sentences were worked on on this talk page back when Nikkimaria had time for this. I believe I also added a source to the previous sentence.

    Before age thirty, he showed his propensity for litigation, no matter the outcome and cost; even when he lost, he described the case as a win.[8] Over three decades as of 2018, Trump had been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits,[9] liens, and other filings, often filed for nonpayment against him by employees, contractors, real estate brokers, and his own attorneys.[10] Helping Trump projects,[11] Cohn was a consigliere whose Mafia connections controlled construction unions.[12]

    -SusanLesch (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Usage:

[[Talk:Donald Trump#Cn]] or
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Cn|t]]

n: consensus list item number, currently 1–72
t: desired linktext

Function:

When clicked, goes directly to the consensus list item.

Where to use:

Works when coded on any page on the site. Do not use in articles. Works when coded in any edit summary on the site.

Examples:

[[Talk:Donald Trump#C4]] — Talk:Donald Trump#C4

[[Talk:Donald Trump#C70]] — Talk:Donald Trump#C70

[[Talk:Donald Trump#C70|consensus 70]] — consensus 70

[[Talk:Donald Trump#C70|#70]] — #70

[[#C70|#70]] — #70 is much easier to code, but it would work only on this page and would break when the thread was archived. I don't recommend it.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is a template-qualified editor around who could be bribed with a barnstar or blackmailed, the coding could be simplified to {{trumpcon|70}} or {{trumpcon|70|consensus 70}}. Edit summaries can't use templates, so this would work only when coded on talk pages. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

According to this related Help desk thread, our template name could be something like {{tpc}} (talk page consensus), shortening the preceding by five characters. {{tpc|70}} or {{tpc|70|consensus 70}}. That would be highly usable, but we would still need that imaginary editor to materialize out of the ether. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Usage:

Same as the item link, except that the item number is replaced by "C".

[[Talk:Donald Trump#CC]] or
[[Talk:Donald Trump#CC|t]]

t: desired linktext

Function:

When clicked, goes to the top of the consensus list.

Functionally equivalent to:

[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus]] or
[[Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus|t]]

Example:

[[Talk:Donald Trump#CC|consensus list]] — consensus list

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2025 (2)

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the line, "His administration's actions—including intimidation of political opponents and civil society, deportations of immigrants..." I disagree with the assertion of "Immigrants" at the tail-end of the quoted sentence. I acknowledge that in the USA, all are innocent until proven guilty, but the fact of the matter is that many of these "Immigrants" have already been rejected on their Asylum claims, actively caught illegally crossing or, in some way, found and verified to be residing as illegal, non-citizens and ultimately decided as guilty and issued an order of removal, or straight up deportation, by various Immigration officials, including ICE officers and Judges.

So, they should be known as Illegal Immigrants instead of Immigrants. That is what the Second Trump Admin is focused on and they have repeated that in multiple statements to and interviews with the Press. This is muddying the waters where it shouldn't be. You just cannot be factually deported if you have some form of valid residency, full citizenship or just aren't illegally emigrating to the US whatsoever—a federal criminal statute, still today.

At the very least, change "deportations of immigrants" to "deportations of alleged illegal immigrants." But I again further urge the re-edit to just be "illegal immigrants." Various interviews published to YouTube with current Border Czar Tom Homan have already more than confirmed this, alongside data straight from Immigration Courts and ICE officials. Vandicoup (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2025

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Change:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States.

To:

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who is the 47th president of the United States. 2001:8003:8C71:D00:CCD4:77E4:5EB6:6016 (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done
For further information, search the talk page archives for your request, "convicted felon". The talk header at the top of this talk page contains a search bar that you can use to inquire about past discussions. — Paper Luigi T • C 06:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Trump was friends with pedo Jeffrey Epstein

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Duplicate of Talk:Donald Trump#Trump–Epstein. Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump was friends with pedo Jeffrey Epstein, include that at the beginning of the article. 2001:861:2811:3030:B895:DB33:573D:EE7A (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for handling sources on this page

Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion

At User:Mandruss/sandbox3 (permalink), I have sandboxed a copy of this page without {{sources-talk}}, {{ref-talk}}, or equivalents. This causes all references used on the page to be listed consolidated at the bottom of the page.

The upside is that we would never have to remember to include one of those templates, and to keep it at the bottom of thread as editors do this. This would be one fewer "overhead item" to think about, one step closer to a simpler environment for all participants on this page.

The downside?

  • As far as I can tell, there is zero loss of functionality or usability, unless one wants to ask the question, "What are the references used in this thread alone?" That is not a question I have ever needed to ask.
  • If one doesn't understand what's going on, it will appear as if all of the listed refs are used in the last section on the page. Some editors who are unfamiliar with the page will add templates to "fix" the "problem", and they should be reverted. There will not be any urgency to revert them, since the templates won't create a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. I believe that the upside exceeds the downside. These templates are more trouble than they're worth, they do not earn their keep. Something tells me I'll be doing most of the reverting, and that's fine. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
  • support this would definitely make it easier for the editors John Bois (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but I would be curious how this impacts the archives in the long term. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
    Same as this page. All refs used on an archive page would be dumped at the end of that page. This applies to archive pages created after this change. Preexisting archive pages would be unaffected; I don't propose to remove the templates from those pages. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the page loses readability if you have to scroll down to the bottom of the page for cited refs. Plus, it's probably going to be another internal consistency list item nobody reads. "Trump-Epstein" with its many reftalks will eventually be archived. Many editors don't know how to cite properly in mainspace, let alone on the talk page. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think you fully understand the issue.
    • Interested in a particular ref? The citation number is a link to it, whether it's listed in the thread or at the bottom of the page. Click it and you go there, no manual scroll required. You can try this in my sandbox, here (permalink).
    • Interested in a particular ref? It's shown in a pop-up (tooltip?) when I hover over the citation number, whether it's listed in the thread or at the bottom of the page. Granted, this probably doesn't happen on all platforms, and it requires a certain user preference setting.
    • (For evidence that things work fine when all refs are listed at the bottom of the page, not in each section, follow this link.)
    • Interested in a list comprising only the refs in a particular discussion? Why?
    it's probably going to be another internal consistency list item nobody reads. You're mostly right. I'm sure some editors read Talk:Donald Trump#Internal consistency or just pay attention to editors who do read it. As for the others, a shortage of editor interest has not prevented a high level of internal consistency. (Actually it would be a consensus list item, since the Internal consistency section applies only to the article page.)
    Every major article talk page needs a janitor or two to keep things clean and tidy for the rest, and I've somehow fallen into that role around here. Precious few editors can be bothered to enforce consensus 61 in the manner described in the consensus item, for example, despite that all editors should be doing so (it's a consensus). It's a system that has worked fairly well. A little more effort for me means a little less effort for everybody else. While I would certainly appreciate any help, I don't need it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
    "Trump-Epstein" with its many reftalks will eventually be archived. So?
    Many editors don't know how to cite properly in mainspace, let alone on the talk page. To quote one of your favs: Huh? What does citing properly have to do with where refs are listed? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - practical and efficient. Riposte97 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - The same situation exists for footnotes, so this change would also apply to {{notelist-talk}} and equivalents. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2025

Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

In the "Loss to Biden and rejection of outcome" section, please add to the last sentence, which currently reads Trump did not attend Biden's inauguration on January 20.[1] to:

Trump did not attend Biden's inauguration on January 20 but wished the incoming administration "great luck and great success".[1]

The New York Times article (using a Wayback Machine archive to see the paywalled article) used to cite the claim of Trump not attending Biden's inauguration also points out that Trump wished the then-incoming administration good luck. While I am aware a summary style is needed for this page, given how his non-attendance at the Biden inauguration is important enough to be mentioned in this article shows that it's notable enough to be included, and therefore I see no reason for this article to leave out Trump's complimentary comments from the non-attendance. Cacophonic peace (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Why, what is significant was his non-attendance, not doing what every other outgoing president does. Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
The NYT article that is cited to point out the significance of his non-attendance gives just as much due weight to his "wish you luck" comments. I do not see how it would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to include the compliments. Cacophonic peace (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry, I've only recently gotten used to making edit requests. Cacophonic peace (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
At this article, edit request is rarely the way to go. It's for things that don't require discussion, like typo corrections. I assume you know how to start a regular discussion thread. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Got it Cacophonic peace (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The Great Depression

Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Re these bold edits to the body and the lead, and reinserted after my revert in body and lead. Bold edits:

Lead: He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries, triggering a global trade war and bringing tariffs to their highest level since the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act during the Great Depression.

Body: He triggered a global trade war and brought tariffs to their highest level since the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act during the Great Depression.

After partial revert:

Lead: He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries at the highest level since the 1930s

Body: He triggered a global trade war, imposing tariffs at the highest level since the 1930 Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act.

After partial revert of partial revert:

Lead: He imposed tariffs on nearly all countries at the highest level since the Great Depression

Body: He triggered a global trade war, imposing tariffs at the highest level since the 1930 Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act at the onset of the Great Depression.

(Added the three disputed versions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC))

  1. What is the importance of the Great Depression for Trump's personal bio, body and lead? It isn't mentioned in Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration at all. It also didn't make it into the lead of Tariffs in the second Trump administration where it is mentioned once in the body, in the Economic impacts section.
  2. What is the importance of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act for Trump's personal bio, body and lead? It is mentioned in the lead of Tariffs in the second Trump administration and twice in the body, in the Belarus and Russia and the Economic impacts sections. It didn't make it into the lead of Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration and is mentioned once in the [[one sentence in Tariff implementations section.

They're factoids much like "second president with nonsecutive terms". It's something news media mention along with many other facts and factoids that our article doesn't mention. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The effects of the 1930 Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, enacted at the onset of the Great Depression, have been widely retroactively evaluated by academics as severely worsening the situation and backfiring,[2][3][4] sending the US economy spiraling deeper into the longest and most brutal depression in its 250-year history. Analogously, Trump’s tariffs, unprecedented in US history in their scope and scale (other than the aforementioned Depression-era tariff act)[5], have been evaluated by Goldman Sachs,[6] JPMorgan,[7][8] and other top economists[9][10] as potentially having a similarly disastrous effect on the economy, given the current tariff levels continue. Wells Fargo said that "to the extent the recent baseline and reciprocal tariffs stick, it looks increasingly unlikely that the U.S. economy will be able to skirt recession".[11] The Fed cited tariffs as the reason to halt lowering interest rates.[12]
In my view, it’s notable because top economists—not just the media—widely liken the nearly-unprecedented Trump tariffs’ potential effects to that of the Great Depression-era act’s effects; that is to say, a recession. Benhatsor (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
UNsure what this really has to do with him, rather than his presidency. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
If and when the potential effects turn into real ones and the country sinks into a depression, that's the time to mention it as one of Trump's signature achievements. At the moment, the tariffs are merely the highest imposed in 90 years and possibly without the authority to do so]. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Honorific prefix

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add his honorific prefix "The Honorable". 2A00:1D34:412:1001:2D6B:731F:1FE7:8465 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

We use honorifics in only a few cases. Not leaders of countries. MOS:HONORIFIC O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"Donald Trump's" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect Donald Trump's has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 11 § Donald Trump's until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Second presidency titles

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey,

For the section that is about his second presidency, why are all of the sub-headers ending with ", 2025–present", when the header already has "(2025–present)"? It is repetitve and does not make the article clean. Should we remove it?

Cheers. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 192#Duplicate section headings in the article, Part II. Lesser of several evils, in a nutshell. Best we can do within the technical limitations of a system that did not anticipate nonconsecutive terms. BTW, they are headings, not titles or sub-headers. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Made a few small tweaks

Latest comment: 10 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi,

I've added what I believe is better nuance and accuracy to the lede; you can look at the edit history for my reasonings. No new sentences were written, so I didn't think it was necessary to notify everybody first.

However, this part still reads poorly imo: Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic, and he has made false or misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories at a frequency unprecedented for a U.S. president. It's too many ands.

My proposal is to say more concisely that he has spread misinformation. Not to be confused with disinformation, a subset thereof which implies intent to deceive (We can't exactly see in Donald Trump's head, so any speculation as to why he does this would fall under WP:NPOV and WP:OR) Shoshin000 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The second "and" connects two independent clauses, each of which contains a list of two items joined by "and". Trump has done more than spreading misinformation. He's also spread disinformation, such as claiming that the Biden administration had diverted Hurricane Helene disaster relief to migrant programs. That's not misleading, it's false, i.e., disinformation. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

49. Supersedes #35. Include in lead: Trump has made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics. (Dec 2020)

53. The lead should mention that Trump promotes conspiracy theories. (RfC October 2021)

Current text:

Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic, and he has made false or misleading statements and promoted conspiracy theories to an extent unprecedented for a U.S. president.

We have usually allowed some deviation from the precise text in the consensus item, providing the essential meaning is not changed. This is an example of the downside of that flexibility. "for a U.S. president" does not mean "in American politics". So at least one of Shoshin000's changes amounts to an involved re-closure of the consensus 49 discussion, with no record of said re-closure in the archive or the consensus list. We can't do that. What we can do is one of the following:
  • Seek an uninvolved re-closure of #49. The original closer should be invited to participate in that discussion.
  • Request a closure review for #49. More technically correct; also more trouble.
  • Seek an amendment to #49, separately from this discussion.
I will restore "in American politics" pending re-closure or amendment of #49. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Would we need to actually re-close #49? I note it's five years old. That may be enough time to revisit it de novo. Riposte97 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't object on a "too soon" basis, if someone feels that little phrase is worth the time and effort. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the wording "in American politics" is correct. How many American politicians have there even been? And don't the political activities of all citizens connected to the United States fall under the umbrella "American political history"? Shoshin000 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Then seek an amendment to #49, separately from this discussion. As I said. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:39, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I have no idea on how to do that Shoshin000 (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Start a new thread. Make the heading "Proposal for amendment to consensus 49".
  • In your opening comment:
    • describe your proposed change, as clearly as you can
    • lay out your argument for it, as completely as you can
    • sign
  • Optionally, begin a bulleted list immediately after your opening comment. Add the first bullet, "* Support as proposer." and sign again. Other editors will continue the bulleted list, creating a more structured discussion. This format makes clear each editor's position on the question, even as some of them change in the course of discussion. But this is your call, at least as far as your opening comment(s).
  • Have a smoothie, breathe the delicate and nuanced aroma of cow manure (esp. good in the morning), and wait for participation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

New Jersey Generals press conference img in "Side ventures"

Latest comment: 10 months ago12 comments2 people in discussion

I was going to do a self-revert anyway, because of 3RR (just in case). The real reason for keeping the original image is mentioned in the editsum of my next edit: "The focus is on the New Jersey Generals mentioned in the section. Trim caption." Flutie isn't mentioned in the section, the New Jersey Generals are, and the close-up of Flutie and Trump could have been taken anywhere. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The original image does not include the New Jersey Generals, so I can't follow your reasoning. This being a biography of Trump, the focus of the image is on Trump. The new image provides a much better look at him. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
The article has plenty of "better look[s] at him". The reason for the revert is the same one as for the previous revert, i.e., the closeup image is not an improvement. Text in section: In September 1983, he purchased the New Jersey Generals, a team in the United States Football League. The big Generals logo on the lectern and USFL and Generals banners on the pink marble walls of the Trump Tower lobby — pertinent visual info. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Then remove the image as decorative. Problem solved. I don't think readers need or want that much insight into the Generals deal. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I think it's "significant and relevant in the topic's context" per MOS:IMAGEREL. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
You're confusing me with the bold editor. I restored the longstanding image. All I had to wait for was for my 24-hour 3RR clock to expire. Which it did before I reverted. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
@Mandruss: in case you forgot. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
So it takes new content 4–6 weeks to achieve "status quo ante" status (you could say the length of the BRD cycle is 4–6 weeks). I don't think that's a factor here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I added the image on October 14, 2021, following this edit request. I made a bold edit almost four years ago, unchallenged, Yovt made one 19 hours ago, challenged. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I put my brain to work on that. Soon thereafter, it went on strike for higher pay and better working conditions. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts, anyone else? Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Bueller? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Early life and real estate

Latest comment: 10 months ago20 comments3 people in discussion

@Mandruss:, just a note based on past experience per WP:CONSECUTIVECITE and WP:INTEGRITY. "The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed." I have a toppling stack of books here from a library that I can't write in. Please don't move the citations around to the end of sentences if you can help it. Thanks.

@Space4Time3Continuum2x:, what I added is mostly not new. There's one new sentence about Mr. Cohn that Haberman found to be important. I hope you agree this works better to tie him up in a single para. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that. Do you have a link? I recently did the reverse, here. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right. I apologize for the false accusation! -SusanLesch (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Honest human mistake + no harm done = no apology necessary. But you have a small bit of egg on your face. It's your turn. :) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Much of the stuff you added was removed last year or earlier as "overdetail" and "trivial", some is new (B average—that's important because?), some of it is wrong. E.g., E. Trump & Son went out of business around 1929/1930, years before Fred Trump returned to the real estate business (he opened and ran a supermarket in between), initially with a partner by buying a bankrupt mortgage servicer and then buying and flipping properties in foreclosure, before getting back to constructing buildings. Re failed verification: No. Quoting the cited NYT source:

All County was not the only company the Trumps set up to drain cash from Fred Trump’s empire. A lucrative income source for Fred Trump was the management fees he charged his buildings. His primary management company, Trump Management, earned $6.8 million in 1993 alone. The Trumps found a way to redirect those fees to the children, too.
On Jan. 21, 1994, they created a company called Apartment Management Associates Inc., with a mailing address at Mr. Walter’s Manhasset home. Two months later, records show, Apartment Management started collecting fees that had previously gone to Trump Management.
The only difference was that Donald Trump and his siblings owned Apartment Management.
Between All County and Apartment Management, Fred Trump’s mountain of cash was rapidly dwindling. By 1998, records show, All County and Apartment Management were generating today’s equivalent of $2.2 million a year for each of the Trump children.

Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
(B average—that's important because?) - Because it's a biography. Articulated further elsewhere on this page. This is one of the "neutrals" I referred to there. If a reliable source said he tries to remove ear wax using Q-Tips, that would be includeable in a biography where there is a dearth of personal information available. Donald Trump#Early life and education, which has no subarticle, can grow considerably before it approaches the size of Donald Trump#Domestic policy, which has four of them. Never mind the rest of post-2015. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Then there's the society page stuff: Captivated by its glamor and riches ... He moved from his studio to a penthouse with a view and got a real estate broker's license in the mid-1970s, wording (grand-sounding umbrella}. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
(B average—that's important because?) Trump claims to be "like, really smart". Kranish & Fisher say, "For a time, Trump bragged of being a top student among his 333 Wharton classmates, even claiming to have been first in the class." (pp. 47–48) Not a fan, Barrett calls him a mediocre student [squash player]. "B average" is the only grade we have before Trump protected his academic records with threats. It should stand. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Mandruss, an omission in §Early life and education could be sports. Trump exaggerated his prowess but he was a good athlete. I avoid the present-day subject of golf but maybe someone else would like to color in this space. (The library has a whole book about it.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Someone checked it out. I'll have the book here Thursday. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Space, unfortunate that you removed the only female from the origin of the Trump family real estate business. Barrett calls Elizabeth Trump's business "the first Trump construction company" and credits her for pushing Fred into home-building. (p. 71) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Academic record: Barrett says Trump was "hardly a star student at Fordham" and at Wharton "he continued to coast in class" (pg. 75). Do any other sources mention Trump's high school average? Business and family history: covered in several "main" articles. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Academic record: Glad to see you're reading Wayne Barrett. He is the only source I have for "B average". There's enough there for a sentence. Mr. Barrett was around before Trump/Cohen threatened all the schools.
Business and family history: Why did you erase his older brother Fred Jr., Fred's presumed heir? Haberman explains this in one page. (p. 29)
Nine words apiece wasn't excessive for Elizabeth and Fred Jr.
Can we call it "Trump management" small 'm' in §Real estate's final para? "Trump Management" is an unknown entity in Wikipedia.
-SusanLesch (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Trump Management Inc. is not unknown in Wikipedia, mentioned in Fred_Trump#Legacy and Trump family#John W. Walter (Trump cousin, Chief Executive Officer of Trump Management), both with cites to NY Times and others. But even if it weren't mentioned anywhere in WP, it's still the name of the company, and names are capitalized. Blair, D'Antonio, Haberman, Kranish/Fisher mention it. OR: you can also look it up on [New York's corporation and business entity database]. Last biennial statement filed in 2017, the year before Walter's death. (ENTITY NAME: TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC., DOS ID: 275774, Address: 511 MANHASSET WOODS ROAD, MANHASSET, NY, UNITED STATES, 11030 - 1663, Chief Executive Officer's Name and Address Name: JOHN W. WALTER Address: 511 MANHASSET WOODS ROAD, MANHASSET, NY, UNITED STATES, 11030 - 1663) Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Right you are, Kranish & Fisher give that name on pp. 51 and 52. I was looking at this. The "Fred C. Trump Organization" is one name of maybe fifty. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I could use some help with a sentence: "By the time he went to Wharton—where he does not appear on a publication of the honor roll[13]—he was eyeing a career in real estate.[14]". Kranish & Fisher had no access to Trump's school records, so they cite The Daily Pennsylvanian. What's the best way to not say this is an official Wharton publication and still say it is a Wharton student publication? Seems to me, the loc parameter should contain this note. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If I understand the issue: You can put any useful notes immediately following <ref>. You can also put them immediately before </ref>, but they're more visible at the beginning. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, but if you're using {{sfn}}, there are no ref or /ref. In that case, yer on yer own unless that template accommodates such notes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
There's no need to cite the student paper. Here is Kranish three years after the publication of "Trump Revealed" factchecking Trump's claim of having graduated "first in his class" at Wharton against UPenn's commencement program. I recently restored the commencement program cited in Kranish's article as the second cite for the sentence. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Wonderful. I don't know if you wish to add pages 63 to 69 (the list of honors), so I put this citation in a footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

New article - 2025 Florida Turnpike crash

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since President Trump has commented on this topic, I'd like to draw your attention to 2025 Florida Turnpike crash.

Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Is this just to let people know that he commented or is there a change you want to make based on this? GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I assume the former unless there is evidence of the latter. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok thanks GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump filmography

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Donald Trump filmography needs cleanup, compare with other filmographies

Piñanana (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Then clean it up per BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
BRD ... ?
Piñanana (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
WP:BRD. Just do it (BOLD) and see if you get challenged. If you're saying it's too much work for one person, I can't speak for others but I'm booked solid through December (and I don't care about filmographies anyway). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Other than the IMDb ref, what parts of the filmography article do you believe need cleanup? It would help if you cited specific examples so that we could focus on article improvement. — Paper Luigi T • C 06:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Do you mean your comment at Talk:Donald_Trump_filmography#Donald_Trump_documentaries? I'll respond there. Space4TCatHerder🖖 10:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Overview source

Latest comment: 9 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I think what makes this article so challenging is the lack of overview sources and almost total reliance on media sources. The only decent one I've found is his entry in A Dictionary of Contemporary World History (2021), unfortunately quite old, but hopefully it helps (at the very least I hope we can replace some of the media refs):

Kowal2701 (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

What does this say, we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
No idea, I’ll leave it to others more familiar with the article, but it’s also about how it says it and what it omits. But its tone is negative which endorses the negative tone in this article Kowal2701 (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The subject of this article is someone active in contemporary politics. That pretty much requires using contemporary "media sources", i.e., reliable news sources. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research, in particular WP:PSTS. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
… WP:BESTSOURCES, specifically When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources.? WP:ACADEMICBIAS? I didn’t say "remove all media sources" so I don’t get this response. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
If you have no idea what RS say, how do you know we are not using the best sources available? Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Because imo a tertiary academic source (from a reputable publisher, cowritten by a historian on modern-era and a journalist) with the same scope as the article is highly likely to make our list of best sources regardless (especially since it’s the only one I could find). But I was more putting it here for people more familiar w the literature and topic Kowal2701 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Where did you find the 2021 edition? The current online version is the 2016 3rd edition, which doesn't mention Trump. Aside from that, I'm not all that impressed by that biography. The first "sentence" has some long relative clauses but is missing verb and object: The son of Frederick Trump, [relative clause], and Mary McLoud, [serial relative clause], what? And sketchy statements like this: The property slump in the early 1990s nearly bankrupted him. His casino and hotel bankruptcies weren't caused by falling home prices. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The link I gave above is to the 6th edition. I don’t think the first sentence being long is relevant, can’t comment on the content Kowal2701 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah, OK, didn't notice that I needed to log in to access it. I just looked up the dictionary online. The length of the first sentence wouldn't be a problem if it was a sentence, but, as I said, it isn't. Shit happens, but I would have assumed that Oxford University Press has editors to proofread material before it's published. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Articles are supposed to be based on secondary, not tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are helpful in establishing due weight of information in the article. What is there about this article that you have a problem with? TFD (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Over reliance on primary media sources, mostly regarding years-old events. For facts, they’re probably okay, but determining DUE based the vast amounts of primary sources there are, 24/7, is very difficult, sensationalism is also a concern. Discussions I’ve seen here on DUE appear to revolve around what’s perceived to be significant, which imo for present-day events seems reasonable, but otherwise seems flawed Kowal2701 (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Also some more analysis would be good, our article doesn’t appear to discuss his voter base despite the above source being ~1/10th the size and discussing it, also the bit about people following his Twitter to "avoid fake news" seems insightful Kowal2701 (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
As with any presidency, there is a vast academic literature on Trump. He is almost universally regarded as the worst president of all time among historians, and has no serious competitors for the dishonor. Indeed, Trump's unilateral exit from the Paris Accord after systematically dismantling American democracy likely spells doom for the human race, thus meaning death for us all. The article should reflect these well known facts. 2600:4041:5CD4:9E00:1863:8658:630E:DB2 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Racism

Latest comment: 9 months ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Trump is a racist, it’s a fact, include that at the beginning of the article. 2001:861:2811:3030:B895:DB33:573D:EE7A (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
"Source" 🤡, search it up by yourself 2001:861:2811:3030:B895:DB33:573D:EE7A (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
It’s literally obvious and known, as a cop I know more than you, at least I have a life not saying "Source?" when you could literally just search it up by yourself. This is how BOTS act on Wikipedia. 2001:861:2811:3030:B895:DB33:573D:EE7A (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Not including that Trump is a racist just shows how biased Wikipedia is. 2001:861:2811:3030:B895:DB33:573D:EE7A (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Bring reliable sources supporting your proposed content, and we can talk about it. And nothing goes in the lead without being accepted in the body first. And refer to the talk page archive for past extended discussion about this, resulting in what we have today. Lots of editor brainpower has already been expended on this, and I don't see any point in rehashing it now. See WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
See WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS.
The mission of this page does not include educating uninformed users about How Wikipedia Works; that's a public relations function, it's hardly specific to this article (Wikipedia Works the same at all articles), and the editors here aren't so good at education, over all. Knowing Wikipedia policy and explaining it to the uninitiated are two different things.
I suggest WP:TEAHOUSE for that purpose, where you will be welcomed if you're willing to learn (that's how those editors earn their unpay). You might find WP:TRUMPRCB an informative short read, bearing in mind that it's primarily written for Trump supporters (that's where we get the most bias complaints, by far). Thanks for stopping by! ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
No, including that he is "racist" is biased. Racism is something that cannot truly be proven. Wikipedia states the facts and only the facts. 100.16.162.233 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Remember Wikipedia:Civility. Also, if you want the content to be included you should provide citations. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Might I direct you to Donald_Trump#Racial_and_gender_views, where the first two sentences in that section of the article read, "Many of Trump's comments and actions have been characterized as racist. In a 2018 national poll, about half of respondents said he is racist; a greater proportion believed that he emboldened racists." In other words, we are not omitting that from the article. You say we should include that fact "at the beginning of the article", so I would direct your attention to the part of the lead that reads, "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic, . . ." In other words, thank you for telling us to include something at the beginning of the article that is literally already included at the beginning of the article.
Regarding the other section you started, wanting us to include Trump's friendship with Epstein at the beginning of the article, there is a section a little further up where we are brainstorming the best language to use to convey that information. Feel free to comment in that section about which of the proposed language you think is best. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles do not label subjects as racist per Contentious labels. If you object, then get the MOS changed first. TFD (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Very Fine People

Latest comment: 9 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Stating that there were "very fine people on both sides", were criticized as implying a moral equivalence between the white supremacist demonstrators and the counter-protesters.

President Trump started the “very fine people” quote by saying “you had some very bad people in that group” referring to white supremacists.

This fact check by USA Today admits President Trump never called white supremacists “very fine people” whether their rating is honest or not. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/

CNBC runs the false headline, but actually plays the full clip. The full clip debunks the USA Today article’s reason for labeling the claim “Partly False”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

I want the truth to be accessible even though I know the article will not be updated to reflect to the truth. WhowinsIwins (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, WhowinsIwins. The quote you cite is at about 18:15 of the full clip right here. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don’t need to watch a clip you posted. The clip I provided is sufficient, unless Wikipedia considers CNBC an unreliable source, which last I checked it wasn’t. Even if you ignore the video I still posted the USA Today fact check. The fact check ridiculously dances around the truth and gives a bogus rating, but the article still explains the truth. So again, unless Wikipedia considers USA Today an unreliable source then I don’t see the problem with telling the truth. President Trump never called Neo-Nazi’s “very fine people”. WhowinsIwins (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Sources, per WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Say what you want the article to say with some specificity, and provide sufficient reliable sources to support it. The more controversial the content, the more sources are required. These are not hard concepts. It gets more complicated when you get into the weeds of what "support it" actually means; but that is sophomore year Wikipedia Editing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
The consensus of this RfC less than three months ago was to keep the wording. See also: Unite_the_Right_rally#President Trump's response. Space4TCatHerder🖖 21:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I think you're unaware of what a "dog whistle" is. NesserWiki (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2025

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
PER ITEM #70
Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow ☩ (Babysharkboss2) 17:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change “Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States.” to “Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, businessman, and convicted felon who is the 47th president of the United States.”

Why not be fully accurate in describing who he is? Wikipedia does this for other well known criminals. Camdenhuff (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

See the "Current consensus", item 70, at the top of this page. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
 Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump–Epstein

Latest comment: 9 months ago250 comments27 people in discussion
Consensus for Proposal 11 here, which earned a 71% majority !vote among 14 Round Two participants. Discussion/development phase: 27 days and 9,700–10,300 words not including collapsed content. Survey/selection phase: 14 days. There was some sentiment that further tweaking is needed immediately, and that may be addressed by separate amendment discussion(s). Preferably, there should be one separate amendment discussion per proposed tweak, and all this can be easily and clearly tracked and documented in the new consensus list item.
This consensus doesn't cover the placement of the content within the body, so that's subject to normal BRD process and no content will be added by me.
Eligible for manual archival after this time tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original heading: "Agenda around Epstein?" ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

OK guys this is getting a little bit crazy.

Epstein and Trump have been together in the news nonstop for like what two weeks now? It's causing a rift in the MAGA movement and is objectively a pretty big deal.

Yet this article seems to have been completely scrubbed of any mention of ol Jeffy Epstein.

Whats up with that? Hard to say that Epstein isn't relevant to Trump at this point. The media coverage coverage and the schism in the movement alone justify a mention.

Or are we going to list everything going on in his presidency in fairly granular detail while completely omitting what has been a pretty major news story with some staying power?

Maybe it's not appropriate but I suspect some folks who are involved with the content on this page have an agenda to keep any mention of Epstein off this page.

If so that is shameful! I'd not then I apologize :) Necrambo (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, if this were any other PERSON let alone PRESIDENT, it wouldnt even be a question to include it. Disgusting. JemT2000 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Don't do that again. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 20:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I've raised this point several times, going as far as to bring it to a community discussion, but every time the discussion just peters out without a definitive conclusion. The fact that Epstein isn't mentioned at all in this article, despite the fact that he is extensively covered in articles about people who arguably had less substantial dealings with him than Trump, remains a galling double standard.
To be frank, the reluctance of admins to allow mentions of Epstein in this article seems to me like an overcorrection against previous accusations that the article or Wikipedia in general carries an anti-Trump bias. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The topic of this discussion is whether this article should mention the Epstein thing. Why it currently omits that is irrelevant. Avoid commenting about editors' motives. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I too am baffled by the unexplained absence of any mention of the Epstein scandal on the page. While it is not currently confirmed whether Trump's name appears on the client list or not, it IS relevant to mention that he has declared the Epstein list to be a hoax on multiple occasions, and has been accused by his former "colleague" Elon of appearing on it. One of the things he campaigned on during his third run was releasing the Epstein files. All of this is relevant information, and all of it has been reported on by major news networks, so there is zero excuse for none of it to be mentioned on here. Alex the weeb (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Per arguments to date, I support up to three average-length sentences in the body. Including a link to the appropriate subarticle providing more detail. I oppose anything in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The issues maybe how to represent it, as wp:blp applies. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely. I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
As I see it (OR alerts), there are two versions. There was a list, and Trump is now lying. Or there was never a list, and Trump was lying. The problem is, we cannot know which of those is true. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
We don't have to say which of those is true. We merely summarize the controversy per RS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Which may well end up being way too big for what is an overview of what is (in reality) a recent controversy (well not his links to Epstein, but the controversy surrounding those links). Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I said I support up to three average-length sentences. If that's not enough, I support nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
It is clearly WP:DUE to say something in this article about Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, especially in light of the last week or two's developments. I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton's article has a three-paragraph subsection on Epstein? Obviously we don't OTHERSTUFF things into existence here, but it is striking to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: So would you go so far as to support a three-sentence limit? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why we would limit ourselves to three sentences given the breadth of information out there, or why you're pushing for it while acknowledging you lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it). I say we draft some text here and see where consensus is. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal poke, but I don't need knowledge of the subject matter to oppose overdetail in this article. We have way too much of that already, we don't need more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mean it as a "poke", but just a way of pointing out that this may need more detail than you might want. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
If so, my support changes to oppose. I haven't seen many issues that couldn't be summarized/overviewed in three sentences, and I doubt this is one of them. Hell, I could summarize World War II in three sentences if I put my mind to it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
As good at concision as you may be, that'd be impossible. Back to this topic, Epstein's personal life section has paragraphs about Trump. It's probably UNDUE even for Epstein's bio. I oppose setting a limit on Epstein text for this article at this point because we don't know how far it all will go in the coming weeks, and we should see proposed text before supporting or opposing. But we can start with a brief paragraph of three-or-so sentences. If I have the time and energy, I may try to draft it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
that'd be impossible. Back to this topic - This is not off-topic. I'd say it's an important part of the question.

World War II (1939–1945) was an armed conflict between Nazi Germany, Japan, and their allies (the Axis Powers), and England, the United States, and their allies (the Allied Powers). It arose from Germany's and Japan's desires for expansion, and it saw the first and only use of atomic bombs in war. The Allied Powers were ultimately victorious, resulting in the division of Germany into two states until 1990.

―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Err, this has had no impact. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
What? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Well unless you are trying to say "this is what we say about the impact of WW2, so why not mention this here", what were you trying to say by bringing up WW2? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm illustrating that even something as large as WWII can be summarized in three sentences, which Muboshgu says is impossible. If it's possible for WWII, it's certainly possible for Trump-Epstein. The idea that a summary would be useless in this article without details X, Y, and Z is an illusion. This article should be "Here's the general outline of the issue. Click for details." Many readers will choose not to click. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Then write it, and present it for critique. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
As much as I hate repeating myself: I lack enough knowledge of the situation (and interest in it) to be of any help with the writing. I've also grown lazy in my halcyon semi-retirement. I generally subscribe to "If you want it done right, do it yourself", but I'm regrettably inadequate to this particular task. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
That leaves a lot of important details out, but like I said summarizing WWII is off topic here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
That's the point. In this article, per current consensus item 37, it's supposed to leave a lot of important details out. Like many similar issues, editors here make two unproven assumptions:
This shows it’s possible to summarise ww2(tho it was the Uk as a whole that was in the conflict not just England and the Holocaust should probably be mentioned in any summary.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm surprised the article currently says nothing about it. In Clinton's case, there was a whole conspiracy story to contend with. When I looked at the section in March, I thought about deleting all of it because it was one big NPOV violation. I thought better of it because it would probably have all been reinserted. It's now a section about what actually happened, mentioning some of the unverified reports. Somehow Trump escaped that treatment, despite e.g. the video of Epstein and him ogling the dancing cheerleaders at Mar-a-Lago and the Trump quote ("I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life") in the fawning New York magazine article in 2002. Meaning, anything we could have written would have been a trivial detail. That's changing now with additional details (Trump's bawdy birthday letter, the release/non-release/possible partial release of the "Epstein files", the reaction of the MAGA mob, and Trump's reaction to the reaction). It's a developing story, 'though, so WP:NOTNEWS applies. There's no rush. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
So, I think it's important to consider the fact that although Epstein is not mentioned by name in this article, Donald Trump#Racial and gender views does include the following: "At least 25 women publicly accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, kissing without consent, groping, looking under women's skirts, and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants. He has denied the allegations."
Meanwhile, we also have a subarticle, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations which has a whole section on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein which makes it clear that at least some of the women publicly accusing him of sexual misconduct are doing so in the context of his relationship to Epstein.
The current structure of our multiple articles about Donald Trump make it difficult for readers to navigate and find the information they may be looking for. However if we try to jam everything into this article it will be unwieldy. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. The sexual misconduct article is linked from the section on racial and gender views; but not as prominently as Racial views of Donald Trump which is listed as the main article. Meanwhile Racial views of Donald Trump does not mention anything about the sexual abuse allegations or Epstein (as it shouldn't - it would be off topic there). I don't think the sexual assault allegations or his relationship with Epstein are "views" so I think that is misplaced in that section of this article.
My proposal would be to split Donald Trump#Racial and gender views into two sections; one on racial views, and one on gender and sexuality. I will note that that section on racial and gender views does not discuss his views regarding LGBT topics, which I think are appropriately classed as "gender views" (especially his views on Trans people which have evolved from accepting during the 2016 campaign to openly transphobic now). I think it would be appropriate to have a section roughly equivelent in length to what is left of the current racial and gender views section that breaks out the stuff about his views on women and the sexual assault alegations and discusses it (perhaps with a more explicit mention of Epstein) while also incorporating information on his views on LGBTQ issues. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
section "Public image", subsections "Racial views" and "Misogyny and allegations of sexual misconduct". Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that everything is conjecture. This website is intended for facts. DiCaprio has also allegedly frequented Epstein's island. Should it also be featured on his page? 2600:8805:430D:C000:11A0:30ED:1613:1A3C (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Did DiCaprio make a big issue out of it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

So if no one can be arsed, can we close this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I can be arsed, just not at this exact moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I haven't been arsed since I was a boy. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Its not clear what direction this Talk page discussion is taking; Trump has just authorized Pam Bondi to release the Epstein file. Should this Talk page discussion be re-done afterthat file is released by Bondi and its contents made open to the government and public? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

No, Trump-Epstein should be summarized at a sufficiently high level that it's not impacted by every new play in the play-by-play. Up to three average-length sentences, which may change as the situation unfolds (i.e., the summary can be updated/reworked as appropriate, but there will probably never be a need for more than three sentences). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
This insistence on a three sentence limit seems highly arbitrary and destined to provide an incomplete picture. A summary on the subject that adequately explains why it is relevant to Trump would at the bare minimum have to cover the following:
  • Trump and Epstein having been longtime acquaintances.
  • Trump repeatedly entertaining the notion of publicizing further material to Epstein's case, before deciding not to in 2025.
  • The backlash from parts of Trump's base because of the decision.
Writing a summary with one sentence for each of those points would be an obfuscation in and of itself. It would omit things like a former insider in Trump's administration accusing him of being implicated in the files and personally preventing their publication. It would omit how in Trump's first term, a member of his cabinet resigned over his previous handling of Epstein's case (meaning it had material effect on Trump's government). It would omit the fact that Trump's club and part-time residence is alleged to have been the site for much of Epstein's criminal activity. It wouldn't even leave room for the more recent development of Trump suing WSJ over the salacious birthday letter.
While OTHERSTUFF may not be an inherent reason for a thing to be included in this article, for comparison's sake, the article Nathan Myhrvold devotes five sentences to the subject, and that's for someone whose dealings with Epstein were nowhere close to being of the same public interest as Trump's. The comparison highlights the absurdity of setting a three-sentence limit on how much the subject can be covered. TKSnaevarr (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
No, he hasn't authorized Bondi to release the Epstein file. He told Bondi to ask the court to unseal transcripts of Grand Jury testimony. Even if the judges grant the request, the material is going to contain only the evidence against Epstein and possibly Maxwell, i.e., the people prosecutors were going to prosecute, and it's going to be heavily redacted. This article explains it. Excerpt:

Typically, grand jury testimony is neither exhaustive nor fully granular in its detail. It would not include all of the investigative material the F.B.I. seized during its investigation of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, such as the trove of photos found inside a locked safe at his Manhattan townhouse after he was arrested. Instead, it is intended to provide sufficient backup to persuade jurors that there is probable cause that the person under investigation committed a crime. So the best preview of what the testimony might contain is the two indictments against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Those indictments have a narrow focus around Mr. Epstein’s paying underage girls to exploit them sexually, and Ms. Maxwell’s role in facilitating and sometimes participating in the abuse. They do not address Mr. Epstein’s finances or his extensive network of wealthy and prominent friends.

This is Trump's attempt to pacify the MAGAnauts who are upset that their "man on a mission to root out the left lunatic pedophiles" is not releasing the allegedly juicy rest of the Epstein file that Patel, Bongino, Bondi, et al, promised them. "Hey, I tried, but the crooked courts won't let me." Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Is this story going to lead to Trump's resignation or impeachment conviction? If not, then it's not an overly important event, to include. GoodDay (talk)
By that logic, we might as well delete the whole article. After all, none of the events documented in it have led to Trump's resignation or impeachment conviction. That's an absurd litmus to place on information being added. TKSnaevarr (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm all for keeping a lid on being sensationalist or tabloid-like about the subject matter, but we can't just invent shit like "no impeachment means not important" to exclude material. Zaathras (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
It might, but how could we know? Nobody here can predict the future[citation needed] --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 13:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I just find that it's only the news media, that's overly excited about the topic. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Trump seems plenty excited, the way he tried to bully the faithful into believing him and not their lying eyes, and, when that did not work, trying to placate them by asking the courts to unseal grand jury testimony in the cases against Epstein and Maxwell. See the above link to the NY Times article and the excerpt from it. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There are currently 4 full sentences about this matter in the article, with the first sentence of that group being 4-lines long all by itself; that seems excessive coverage. Possibly the section on Epstein could be shortened or even significantly abridged for now, at least until Pam Bondi is able to try to get the file released by the court for everyone to see and to adequately assess. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to Donald Trump#Epstein file? That is something, but it is insufficient. We need to have detail on their personal relationship. Detail can be taken from Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, such as the federal lawsuit that was dismissed, or Trump's famous quote, I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life I'll try to draft something today. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
This was the pre-rewrite version, after I had removed Musk's opinion. "Friendship": the source says "spent nearly 15 years mingling side-by-side as public friends" — seems more "public relations" to me. The New York Times reported that those who knew them at the time said that they would frequently hit on and compete for young women is too close for comfort to the source (What seemed to draw them together, according to those who knew them at the time, was a common interest in hitting on — and competing for — attractive young women at parties, nightclubs and other private events, and Trump has been doing plenty of unwelcome groping all by his lonesome. MOS:EUPHEMISM, aka vagueness - a favorite of Wikipedians: controversial. The "visible fractures within his support base": remains to be seen. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
There's also Trump retweeting a conspiracy theory in 2019, #ClintonBodyCount. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I think that pre-rewrite version is a good start. We should say that they were friends, they partied together, there were young women around them when they did, and then they had a falling out, allegedly over a real estate deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Allegedly. A second version: the authors of "The Grifter's Club", four Miami Herald journalists, write that Epstein had tried to solicit the daughter of a club member at the club, the member complained to Trump (i.e., the incident threatened his bottom line, unlike the solicitation of the club employee's daughter), and Trump barred Epstein. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. I hadn't heard that allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Muboshgu, this is a the 2020 Miami Herald article about the book's authors saying that Epstein was a member of the club until 2007 and a club member telling them about the incident with another club member's daughter. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
You keep repeating Trump talking points. See my above edit and the NY Times excerpt I added to it. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Who decided this should occupy an entire paragraph of §Domestic policy, 2025–present? Trump knew Epstein from 1990 to 2004. This topic belongs in §Personal life (or §Business career if you insist it come earlier). I agree with ErnestKrause you've devoted entirely too many sentences to Ms. Bondi, the Democrats, and suicide. This is a biography of Donald Trump. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
This a prime example of the tangent trap I've been referring to, to largely deaf ears. A requires B, or so some editors think. B requires C, and A+C requires D. And so on. Editors simply do not know how to say less. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
It should occupy that section because it’s talking about actions taken by this Trump presidency(and his current response to the allegations of .) That length seems fine and needed to cover those details. GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The presidency section is exactly where it belongs. If Trump wasn't president and if his officials hadn't made certain announcements (first release coming up, then nothing to see here, move along folks), we wouldn't have the current - uh - excitement. The conspiracy theorists would still be theorizing on TruthSocial, X, and wherever, and the rest of us would be talking about tariffs and ICE raids. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
@BootsED:, editors are currently working on updating this, and some here think the material belonged in the second presidency section. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi Space4TCatHeder, I've updated the page Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein with all the recent reporting and added a new section to this page which is a heavily truncated version of the main page. BootsED (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The only thing we need now is a picture of Donald Trump and Epstein together for the other page that could then be posted here. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have one of the many photographs of them together that are all over the media. We do have one for Bill Clinton and Epstein, apparently. BootsED (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Great! That works for me. Probably best to leave the dismissed lawsuit out of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
The picture of Clinton, Epstein, and Maxwell was taken by the WH photographer at a WH event. It's in the public domain, so WP can use it. Trump was a private citizen during the 15 years he and Epstein palled around, so any pictures and videos are unlikely to be in the public domain. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Riposte97, I see you have reverted parts of my edit adding the Jeffrey Epstein section. You stated you thought there was too much information, and that you thought the section itself should be removed absorbed into the business section of the page. I re-added the edit pointing out that there exists an entire three paragraphs on Epstein's relationship to Bill Clinton at Bill Clinton#Relationship to Jeffrey Epstein, and that two small paragraphs on Trump's relationship to Epstein is thus warranted. You reverted this again, saying simply "challenged" and that the Bill Clinton page was "irrelevant".
While I disagree with you, I would still like to hear your reasoning for your edits and open this up for other editors to discuss. I believe that other editors here have already stated they wanted this section to exist, and agreed to some of the content that was added. For instance, Muboshgu stated he thought that information that they partied with young girls and had a falling out should be included. Currently, your edit simply says that they were friends, and doesn't mention their pursuit of young women which is the whole reason this friendship has received so much attention. BootsED (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The Clinton article is irrelevant here. This article is not governed by editors of other articles. Unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing in policy that supports that kind of reasoning. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The Bill Clinton article is relevant because it's also another article about a United States president who had a well-documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Not sure how you can get more relevant than that. I never made any policy claim that one article controls another, but I and other editors here have simply pointed out the seemingly different standards applied to coverage between the two pages on the same topic.
Why should Bill Clinton's article, which is already very long, devote three entire paragraphs to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein with extensive detail and quotes from relevant parties when he was more notable for his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Why is Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein instead reduced to a small, one-paragraph mention of his friendship that now mostly includes Trump's rebuttal with no mention of why the friendship was controversial (partying with young girls)? Clinton had less contact with Epstein than Trump, so why does he have more coverage on his own page than Trump? And why are some now pushing for the entire section on Trump's relationship with Epstein to be removed or absorbed into other sections of the page? BootsED (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Because two wrongs do not make a right. This is an argument to remove it there, not add it here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
It comes down to WP:DUE. I would think that including content on a relationship with Epstein is more DUE for Trump than Clinton, as Trump and Epstein partied with young girls and there is the (dismissed) lawsuit filed against them, while there are no allegations like that about Clinton and Epstein. The argument on this page needs to remain whether or not it's DUE to include the partying with young girls (which again, I believe it is). We can work to cut down the Clinton/Epstein section on that page if it's agreed UNDUE detail is given there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I would propose re-adding the sentence that they were known for partying with young girls, which provides context about why their friendship was controversial and notable other than simply "they were friends". I would also propose re-adding the sentence that they had a falling-out in 2004, otherwise the article suggests that the "15 years" could have been more recent than not. I included the quotations Trump and Epstein made about being "best friends" to better explain the topic, but I have no problems for these quotations to be removed if editors think this makes the page too long. BootsED (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I think there's a mistake, my second version is the same as the first. You can edit it to simply remove the Trump quote and Epstein quote, which is what I proposed above. (Update: the post was reverted) BootsED (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Trump suing the WSJ, belongs & is listed in the related article Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump#Lawsuits filed by Trump with the other defamation lawsuits filed by Trump. I also added the client list conspiracy theory. How can we not mention that? I also don't see what this section might have to do with Trump's business career. Nothing in the sources suggests that they were in business together. I still think this belongs in "Second presidency" since Trump admin officials are responsible for the publicity, but "Personal life" is better than business. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

i agree with your edits but i think the WSJ thing should stay John Bois (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of someone who has a cursory following of US politics, I believe that at least one mention of Jeffrey Epstein should be included in this article. I did a CTRL+F (Command+F for Mac users) and found the name "Epstein" only in cited authors unrelated to the disgraced financier. This article has no mention of Epstein and his associated affairs.

I'm not asking to litigate all the drama here, and I'm not asking you all to do that either. Please, leave all of that that you want to say at the door (maybe put it in a blog post, YouTube comment, or tweet instead). Briefly, the two men were once friends but had a falling out in the 2000s. WP is not the place to have political arguments. I'm here to ask one simple question.

Why does this article not mention Jeffery Epstein? — Paper Luigi T • C 06:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question a fair few below(not including me I held a different view) decided to wait to include Epstein until the news cycle is over so that would be why he is not included. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
So apparently this was removed again? Is there a reason given? I don't believe there is a consensus here to do so. Also, there is now an entire page on this topic at Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. BootsED (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
BootsED, Riposte removed the entire section with your third version pending topic stability per talk, the next edit reverted the removal, saying work in progress is better than nothing, and this one reverted the revert per "informal consensus" to defer any further discussion "awhile". Two editors agreed (see comments in "Versions" section below the hatted "BootsED's third version"), and the editors who initially supported mentioning Epstein seem to have lost interest and gone away. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I supported and still support Epstein being included I didn’t lose interest(and didn’t go away either.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Versions

The five versions uploaded so far:

BootsED's first version:

Riposte97's version:

BootsED's second version:

My second version, uploaded a short while ago:

Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Please edit my second version to remove the two quotes. It is currently the same. BootsED (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
This evening once I have some more time I'll try to create a combined version of all the above proposals. Hopefully this will work and satisfy everyone. BootsED (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Rmv like this? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Perfect! BootsED (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
The current content is far too voluminous. This doesn't deserve its own section - a couple of sentences at most. My suggestion would be:
(V e r s i o n 6 Version number added by Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)) - Trump's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has attracted significant media attention. Trump's Justice Department appeared to contradict itself when it stated in July 2025 that Epstein had committed suicide, and did not keep a compromising list of famous pedophiles, contrary to prior statements. This reversal has attracted criticism from within the MAGA movement.[citation]
I reckon this will probably need an RfC. Riposte97 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I support your language with a caveat. I suggest we avoid the word "committed", which is controversial at Wikipedia if not discouraged by a guideline. Resistance is futile. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC) Support moved to another 00:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would "died by" be acceptable? Riposte97 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
There is much to be said for supporting this shorter Riposte97-Mandruss version. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
You and others persist in believing, falsely, that (1) most readers care about the details of this purely speculative media overblow, and (2) this will be the interested reader's last stop. To the extent you succeed in making this their last stop, you are actually encouraging ineffective use of the encyclopedia. By reducing views of the subarticles, you are to some extent wasting the immeasurable time spent developing them. Subarticles are not mere afterthoughts. They are an essential part of the encyclopedia. My support for the short version is now strong support. I have no problem with negotiating tweaks, but it should not be made larger. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I have seen nothing to suggest it’s false that readers are interested in this in fact I have seen alot of people interested in details on this. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I misread EK's comment as opposition to the short version. My reply stands but is not directed at EK. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok fair enough(though my point about your comment on most readers caring is false stands.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
That's vague to the point of being obscure, or maybe (word of the week) enigmatic. "Relationship" — were they dating and, if so, when and how long? "Appeared to contradict itself" — that was one heck of an about-face, followed by Trump name-calling his base who, like good little cult foot soldiers, promptly fell back in line. "A compromising list of famous pedophiles" as the link to Jeffrey Epstein client list — if they were already famous for being pedophiles there wouldn't be much left to compromise. Adding BootsED's third version for discussion:
Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Boots did a great job. You've all helped. The article says what needs to be said. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
It looks like we'll need an RfC to decide between the Boots/Space version and my/Mandruss' version, and also where in the article the mention should go. Does anyone have any other points they want covered off in the RfC before I start it? Riposte97 (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Wait until the news cycle is over, it's an extended one. (Frx, CNN just came out with 1993 photos.) The topic will be easy to summarize once it concludes. I object to an RfC to evaluate a moving target. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Ditto, we can wait, we do not need to rush into print, we are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I like waiting. That would be an informal consensus to defer discussion for awhile, TBD. This might mean immediate closure of new discussions per this informal consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Well then we should revert to the status quo ante and remove what was inserted last week while we wait. Riposte97 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that we need to wait we can create a good version of this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
What is your hurry? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I just don’t think waiting is necessary we have the information to be able to create(and if need be vote in an rfc) a good section on this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
If so, we will still have "the information" after a wait. So what is your hurry? I'm waiting for you to say something like, "Well it's important to get the information out there as soon as possible." Then I can respond, "That's where you're wrong. It is not at all important. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper." ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
The information being there after a potential wait doesn’t mean we should wait when it’s not necessary and we can create the section now with the info. My answer to why the hurry is what I said before it’s not necessary to wait we have the information to vote or put into the page(I also don't agree that this isn’t important his relationship with Epstein is a fairly important thing.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt a conspiracy theory with a factoid. Epstein had no "client list", per Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald who should know. He had a list of contacts, like you or I might have if we kept our address book in a spreadsheet. (Frx, mine is a mess spread over two sheets of paper both sides.)

Also a note that Ms. Maxwell won't give her deposition until August 11. GothicGolem29, may I suggest we cool our jets? Have you read WP:NOTNP? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Weather it’s a client list or contact list there’s certainly information out there that we can add to this article.
we don’t need to wait for her deposition to include information when there’s plenty already. Yes and I stand by we have enough information to write about this now. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Your opinion. "Wikipedia does not disseminate the opinion of those who write it" is one section in WP:NOTNP. I recommend you read that. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
It’s not disseminating an opinion it’s including information from reliable sources. I have already read that as I said so thanks for your suggestion but I have already done that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
In terms of what may be DUE at this point in time, unless WP is located under the proverbial rock, it would be very odd not to have ANY mention of this by RS. DN (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

We have seven proposals so far. I just numbered them for easy reference. Any thoughts or preferences? Notifying everyone who's participated in the discussion: Necrambo, JemT2000, Mandruss, TKSnaevarr, Alex the weeb, Slatersteven, Muboshgu, GothicGolem29, ONUnicorn, ErnestKrause, GoodDay, Zaathras, Not-cheesewhisk3rs, SusanLesch, BootsED, John Bois, Paper Luigi, Riposte97, DN. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the 7th version has all the information that’s needed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The 7th version is good. I don't like the version with the "terrific guy" quotation in full as that doesn't add much to the article for the space it takes. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 13:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC) (striked: changed my vote --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC))
Of the 7 options presented, I prefer the 7th option, though I do think it could use some more editing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Support short mention of Epstein. IMO, all versions are too long and hung up on wrangling. Cut the client list that doesn't exist. This would be enough:

For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.[16]

-SusanLesch (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you that we need a short mention. However, I take issue with the 'young women' quote. In the context of Epstein, that is clearly implying Trump is a paedophile. Riposte97 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
"Insinuating" is more apt. I don't know if there was an adultery issue, but there is nothing wrong with a preference for younger women of legal age. So, unless we're insinuating something and hiding behind quotation marks, I don't see the point of that content. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Can we drop "young" without needless speculation? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm content with any of the proposed versions. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Of the proposed options, option 7 is my choice. I think the focus of the paragraph should be on the Epstein files, not the relationship between the two men. The release of the files was a campaign promise in 2024, and the failure to deliver on that promise should be what gets included here in a subsection under his second presidency. That subsection should have a hatnote linking to the Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein page for further information. — Paper Luigi T • C 01:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Can you keep it shorter please? I can agree to the campaign promise but better to wait on the outcome until it is known per WP:NOTNP. We should not have to record all this conspiracy wrangling play by play. #7 discusses at length a client list that doesn't exist, and conflates it with the files. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you. Actually, I don't think any of the proposed inclusions for the Epstein debacle are without fault, but number 7 was my preferred version. That said, I have my issues with it. For one, it's skewing too far to recent events, which is why I suggested that it be included in a subsection for the 2nd term of Trump. Secondly, it implies that Trump is connected to Epstein for all the wrong reasons, which is something we don't have concrete proof of. I think that the Epstein mention should be maybe 3 or 4 sentences that have a hatnote to the page I linked above. We don't need to include all the details on this page because it is, to borrow a term, huge.
I'll propose my own version of the paragraph:
During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, and his associates. Trump and Epstein were friends for about 15 years until 2004. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department declared that no further files would be released, contradicting the rhetoric of Trump's campaign as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi, who remarked earlier in 2025 that the files were on her desk. Trump has repeatedly denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations.
What do you think? — Paper Luigi T • C 04:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I think there are too many versions. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Bravo, Paper Luigi! I move that we make yours an official version. You have my vote. Thank you. -12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Versions (cont.)

Version 8 is my choice. Ping in case you want to revisit, (GothicGolem29—Not-cheesewhisk3rs—ONUnicorn—GoodDay) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I like Version 8. It is relatively short, sweet, and to the point. A few minor suggested tweaks for clarity:
1. During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Epstein died in prison in 2019. - Reason: Having "who died in prison in 2019" in between "Epstein" and "and his associates" interrupts the flow of the sentence and is awkward and slightly confusing to read. I do think the information that Epstein died in 2019 is important context, and should be included in a separate sentence.
2. Trump and Epstein had once been close friends, but their 15 year friendship ended around 2004. - Reason: Again, having the context about their friendship is important, as is the context of its ending. I just think the structure of the proposed sentence is slightly awkward and I'm trying to rectify that, and I want to emphasize the closeness of their relationship.
3. In February 2025 Pam Bondi responded to a question about the promised release of the Epstein files by saying they were on her desk. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department contradicted both Trump's campaign promise and Bondi's February statement when it declared that no further files would be released. - Reason: Break up a run on sentence, clarify the timeline, reduce the repetition of information about the campaign.
~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: would you mind writing your version here? We can collapse it into version 9. I'd be happy to switch my vote to a copyedited version. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 23:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Why did my vote here get struck? GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
This vote? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah thanks my bad looked at the wrong one. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Version 9 is my choice. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Version 9 gets my vote! — Paper Luigi T • C 01:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm switching my vote from version 7 to version 9 as it puts less weight on conspiracy theories. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 15:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I like version 7 or 8.
But I also want to see Mandruss produce their three sentence version in addition :) Necrambo (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Would any editors like to make a case for versions 1 through 6? If not, we can move forward to adding 7, 8, or 9 to the article. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I would oppose these later versions for the simple reason that they remove too much context and detail. For instance, this latest version doesn't even mention that Trump and Epstein were known to hit on and compete to young women, which is part of the reason their friendship is now infamous. It also oddly mentions Trump's 2024 campaign first before their friendship in the 90's. This format would be appropriate for the 2024 campaign page, but not a biography, where his friendship should first be mentioned in chronological order. I would support keeping Version 7, but if someone wanted to trim it further, I would simply merge the last two sentences. BootsED (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm undecided whether a former friendship of two rich, middle-aged leches based on groping young women at events is worth mentioning in the biography of the surviving one who currently happens to be president of the U.S. of A. I object to this sentence in versions 8 and 9 which is not supported by the cited source: Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations (version 8)/activities (version 9). To my knowledge, Trump hasn't been accused by any RS — or by any of our proposed versions — of having been involved in the sex trafficking. The NYT source says that he denied ever having visited Epstein's island "while in the same breath baselessly accusing" Clinton. The conspiracy theory also was trotted out regularly and prominently by Trump and his surrogates and allies during the campaign, with the promise to immediately release the files if he won. For once, some of his followers didn't go along with his change of the narrative, and he responded by attacking them he way he attacks his opponents. Seems an important development. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry to criticize 1 to 7 because Boots and Space are among the best writers we have here. But. For "context and details" in this case, quoting Democrats is boring and pedantic, and the conspiracy theories are raised and abated as if they have enduring importance. They don't belong in this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I could support a Version 10, re-adding Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.[16] and removing Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations (version 8)/activities (version 9). -SusanLesch (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize that this had progressed to a vote and added a single sentence as a placeholder. If anyone wants to revert that, feel free. I will add it here as Version 10:
I currently like my Option 10 the best, although Option 7 is my second choice. We shouldn't overdo it, it doesn't need an entire massive paragraph. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Update: I have altered the proposal slightly to reflect improvements made by Mandruss in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 7 is the best one in my opinion John Bois (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I now support the Big Ten per myself. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, ten options and counting. The !voting is a tangled mess, of course. I'm feeling a tallied survey coming on, as we did with sentences 1 and 2 of the lead. The choice is between one round of voting, likely yielding a plurality, and two rounds of voting, likely yielding a majority. We went two rounds with sentences 1 and 2, starting with 10 options and ending up with a 59% majority in support of the current status quo. I'm happy to build that machine and keep it running, given a green light. I would suggest 10 days for a single round or 7 days each for two rounds. Pings of all (registered) participants at the beginning of each round. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 00:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Succinct is best. Changed my !vote to Version 10. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
All I want is for something about Epstein to appear on this page, and if version 10 is agreed upon, so be it. Where is this supposed to fit on the page? — Paper Luigi T • C 05:57, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Paper Luigi: I think it's clear something will be included. I suggest supporting one or two of the existing options. Where is this supposed to fit on the page? We already have two sentences at Donald Trump#Racial and gender views, just placeholding until there is a consensus here. They happen to correspond to Version 10. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Paper Luigi: I expanded the placeholder with two sentences from version 9 and moved the paragraph into its own section. A friendship with a child sex offender and the controversy over the release of the files doesn't have anything to do with Trump's "Racial and gender views". Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Please not this new paragraph. It says they knew each other for 15 years, then it says their relationship ended in 2004, then it says they knew each other for 15 years, then it says their friendship ended in 2004. May we return to the !vote? I agree with Paper Luigi that something needs to be said—but not this. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, I have reverted this edit. It is so specific that it makes a bad placeholder as we wait for this to conclude, and I agree with SusanLesch's concerns about the content of it. I would rather have nothing until the conclusion of the !vote than have that as the placeholder. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
My apology for my sloppy editing resulting in the confusing duplicated content. I meant to remove the sentence Trump and Epstein had once been close friends, but their 15 year friendship ended around 2004 when I copied part of version 10 nine but overlooked it somehow. I removed the placeholder — gender views isn't the right place, for one thing. It doesn't cover the friendship/relationship/association with someone indicted for child sex trafficking, IMO. "Subject of controversy" fails verification by the cited sources. The relationship is creepy but undisputed. The dispute/controversy is the difference of opinion on the existence of evidence implicating rich, powerful associates in the trafficking in government files. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Corrected my error. I copied part of version 9. Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to make the case for this paragraph being under the second term section with a focus on the files related to Epstein and less on the relationship between the two men. I concede that the Trump-Epstein connection is a subject of public interest, which a handful of pundits and late-night talk show hosts have speculated on (Colbert, Myers, The Daily Show), but any association beyond their friendship is not proven (as of now).
What we believe is not necessarily what we can verify, and what we can verify is not necessarily the truth.
I believe that a Trump-Epstein paragraph should fall under the second presidency section because the campaign promise about the Epstein files and the subsequent failure to fulfill that promise adequately is noteworthy. That should be the focus, not unproven allegations that Trump had an improper encounter with another person. — Paper Luigi T • C 02:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree on both content and location. Space4TCatHerder🖖 09:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
There needs to be something at least on the relationship between them as many reliable sources have reported on that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Version 10 is the best of what's on offer. Riposte97 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I choose Version 11. Succinct, two sentences, includes personal involvement and media follow up. This should go under a heading in second presidency. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't say they reportedly fell out in 2004. Or around 2004, whatever is supported by RS. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Not the most important thing for another sentence. If you can squeeze it in, go ahead. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
You could say, for example, Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein (they fell out in 2004 or 2007[32]); persons who knew them at the time said they frequently hit on and competed for women. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
This should go under a heading in second presidency. A new heading? I couldn't support that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
All right, then without a heading. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Off topic a tad but this is getting long and complicated is there a better way of organizing this? John Bois (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Not off topic, and I already proposed such a way here. Still waiting for the green light. But it should wait until we're satisfied we have enough viable options; there won't be any tweaking or new options after voting begins. Editors who have already voted in this section will have to vote again in the survey (or they won't be counted), which is why I will ping all participants.
Without some restraint, we'll still be talking about this in October. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

We should be talking (or postpone talking) about this at least until September when the House reconvenes and votes on the release of the Epstein files and we know more about this meeting. Also, the better way forward would be to not vote on versions 1–10 or however many, but on content. I.e., asking "should this content or similar wording be included". E.g.:

  1. For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s.
  2. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.
  3. Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign.

etc. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

(or postpone talking) - What, wait? Sounds vaguely familiar. Some of us tried to save everybody some wasted effort. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I was among "some of us", 20 days ago, before the stampede. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
"There's no rush" is not as emphatic (or effective) as an explicit "let's wait". And that may have been missed at the end of your verbosity. :) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with you, Mandruss. The efforts so far to get a mention of the convicted sex trafficker in a page about his former friend (and current POTUS) are not "wasted" in my view. All of us, or at least most of us, could agree that something needs to be said now. In my view, you've taken an antagonistic stance in this thread against these efforts to either trim things down to a self-imposed, three-sentence mandate or to discourage talk about it altogether, as you have alluded to above. Your disapproval of a paragraph, a heading, a sentence, or otherwise I can attribute only to your personal biases.
No one who has shared their idea of a proposed inclusion has made a "wasted effort" that you have "tried to save" them from. A wasted effort is an oxymoron because any effort towards something meaningful has its purpose. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
All of us, or at least most of us, could agree that something needs to be said now. None of "you" have yet explained why something needs to be said now. See WP:JDLI. Also beware of casting aspersions. Keep your paws off my personal biases.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for a green light to start a selection process that would have something in the article by 27 August if started now. Something supported by a majority of participants. Had it been started when I suggested it, something would be in the article by 19 August. Tick tock. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
The President of the United States was best friends with a sex-trafficking monster during the years said monster was sex-trafficking. I would italicize that entire sentence and then some if I wanted to just to explain the why you are asking about. What else? He promised to release the "Epstein files" during his 2024 campaign. After he was elected, he was made aware that his name was in the files. Agents searched the files and marked every mention of Trump's name in 24-hour shifts. All of a sudden, Trump's administration refuses to release the files, basically saying, "Nothing to see here." Since the Justice Department's announcement last month, this has been a looming scandal on Trump's presidency that has received mass media attention and condemnation from the most liberal pundits to late-night talk show hosts to the guy who put on viking horns to raid the Capitol in Trump's honor.
There's your why and now, Mandruss. If you need further explanation, I'll be happy to oblige. — Paper Luigi T • C 06:12, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't need further explanation. You have articulately laid out the why, and there is already fairly wide agreement that the article should include something. I don't dispute that. But you have not addressed the now; i.e., why there is urgency to include something. It's not a newspaper.
Anyway, to include anything will require consensus on what to include. How do you propose we get from here to consensus before Halloween? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Ya know, sometimes it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. I'm working on starting the survey as described above. At least there hasn't been any opposition to it, to date. Using the survey process, I think we should be able to select one acceptable version out of eleven, while probably failing to achieve a nebulous concept of perfection. Few if any editors will be 100% happy. Majority-supported content will be in the article by 27–28 August. No more tweaking or new options, please. That would be like changing the ballot in the middle of an election (it wouldn't work). ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Good I would support this survey and I am glad we will get a decision on this. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
A question how do I vote in the below survey? GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Never mind I figured it out thanks anyway. GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)


Survey Round One: Trump–Epstein

Round One is closed. Proposals 10 and 11 proceed to Round Two. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Round One closes at 08:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC), at which time Round Two will decide between the top two options in Round One. Round Two will close at 08:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC), at which time:

  • this entire discussion will be closed
  • a consensus list item will be added
  • the article will be updated with the consensus content
  • 24 hours after its closure, the discussion will be manually archived per consensus 13

If Round Two ends in a tie, it will remain open until the tie is broken. Sudden death overtime.

Round One proposals: Trump–Epstein

Do not !vote in this section.

0: No content, or no content at this time. 1: (150 words){{tq2|After she and other Trump officials had for months teased the imminent release of incendiary information (the "Epstein client list") from FBI records of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, U.S Attorney General Pam Bondi stated in a memo released in July 2025 that there was no evidence that Epstein had such a list or that he had blackmailed prominent individuals. The memo also confirmed that Epstein had committed suicide while in custody.[15] The announcement caused an uproar among part of Trump's most fervent supporters who had bought into the conspiracy theory that Epstein was at the center of "a cabal of powerful men and celebrities, largely Democrats" and that the government had covered it up.[16] In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax engendered by Democrats, and that supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".[18] 2: (214 words){{tq2|For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.[16] A 2002 article in New York magazine quoted Trump talking about Epstein: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life."[19][16] The two reportedly had a falling out sometime in 2004.[16] In a 2017 recording, Epstein stated that he was "Donald's closest friend for ten years."[20][33] Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign.[16] In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".[17][18] On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.[21] 3: (109 words){{tq2|For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.[16] In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".[17][18] On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.[21]

4: (139 words){{tq2|For around 15 years, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein beginning sometime in the 1990s. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.[16] The two reportedly had a falling out sometime in 2004.[16]
Trump's relationship with Epstein received significant media attention in 2025 due to his administration's unwillingness to release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's earlier promises to do so during the 2024 campaign.[16] In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".[17][18] On July 17, Trump filed a $20 billion dollar libel lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing the contents of a "bawdy" letter he sent to Epstein in 2003.[21]

5: (122 words){{tq2|For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. According to a conspiracy theory, Epstein had maintained a list of rich and influential clients to whom he had trafficked girls. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced that the list would be released after review. In July, the Justice Department announced that no such list existed; the announcement also confirmed Epstein's death by suicide, contradicting another theory. The reversal resulted in significant media attention for the relationship.[16][22] In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".[17][18]

6: (55 words)

Trump's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has attracted significant media attention. Trump's Justice Department appeared to contradict itself when it stated in July 2025 that Epstein had died by suicide, and did not keep a compromising list of famous pedophiles, contrary to prior statements. This reversal has attracted criticism from within the MAGA movement.[citation]

7: (175 words){{tq2|For around 15 years until 2004, Trump maintained a close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein who was later convicted of child sex trafficking. Those who knew them at the time said they would frequently hit on and compete for young women.[16] According to a conspiracy theory, Epstein had maintained a list of rich and influential clients to whom he had trafficked girls. During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to the client list.[23] In February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated she had the list "sitting on my desk" and it would be released after review.[22] In July, the Justice Department announced that no such list existed and reiterated Epstein's death by suicide, contradicting other theories.[22] The reversal resulted in significant media attention for the past relationship, backlash among Trump's supporters, and conspiracy theories that Trump was in the files.[24][25] In social media posts, Trump said the continuing demands for release of the files were a hoax perpetrated by Democrats, and that his supporters pressing for release were "stupid", "foolish", and "past supporters".[17][18]

8: (87 words)

During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019, and his associates.[26] Trump and Epstein were friends for about 15 years until 2004.[16] A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department declared that no further files would be released, contradicting the rhetoric of Trump's campaign as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi, who remarked earlier in 2025 that the files were on her desk.[26] Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking allegations.[27]

9: (102 words)

During his 2024 campaign, Trump promised to release files relating to convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Epstein died in prison in 2019.[26] Trump and Epstein had once been close friends, but their 15-year friendship ended around 2004.[16] In February 2025 Pam Bondi responded to a question about the promised release of the Epstein files by saying they were on her desk. A July 2025 memo by the Justice Department contradicted both Trump's campaign promise and Bondi's February statement when it declared that no further files would be released.[26] Trump has denied being involved with Epstein's sex trafficking activities.[27]

10: (28 words)

Trump had a close relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which has been a subject of controversy.[34][29][30] The two men reportedly had a falling out in 2004.[16]

11: (52 words)

Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein; persons who knew them at the time said they frequently hit on and competed for women.[16] Media attention and public pressure mounted in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.[31]

Round One !voting: Trump–Epstein

!Vote for one option from the preceding section, 0–11. Or, !vote for two options in order of preference. Editors who have already !voted during discussion must !vote again here or they will not be counted. Round One closes at 08:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC), at which time Round Two will decide between the top two options in Round One.

  • Question. Per my note above about a semicolon and other edits, Mandruss changing a hyphen somewhere else, and PaperLuigi's word suggestion, on August 20 when this closes, may we change #11 to 51 from 52 words like this?
11: (51 words)
Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Persons who knew them at the time said they frequently pursued and competed for women.[16] Media attention and public pressure mounted in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.[31]
-SusanLesch (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
My view? Save it for a separate amendment discussion per orderly process. I made an exception for the hyphen because the chances of that affecting !voting to date were nil; it was completely trivial here but important for the article. I don't think it's reasonable to recall everybody who has !voted to date, to ask if they are amenable to this change—which could put us back into a full-blown discussion. This would also open the door to more tweaking of this option or others, which would require more recalls. Meanwhile, Round One is set to close in 19 hours.
If the goals include organization, smooth process flow, process integrity, and a comprehensible record in the talk page archive, development of proposals and !voting simply must be kept separate. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 12:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Round One tally: Trump–Epstein

As of 22:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC). Number of !voters: 18.

Just !vote in the !voting section above. Others will take care of the update here.

Weighted !vote = N1 + (N2 x 0.6)
N1: Number of first-choice !votes
N2: Number of second-choice !votes

Prop
osal		First
choice		Second
choice		Weighted
!vote
0GoodDayMandruss1.6 = 1 + 0.6
1
22600:4041:5CD4:9E001.0 = 1 + 0.0
3
4
5
6Jack UplandRiposte971.6 = 1 + 0.6
7GothicGolem292600:4041:5CD4:9E001.6 = 1 + 0.6
8MuboshguA. Randomdude0000
GothicGolem29		2.2 = 1 + 1.2
9A. Randomdude0000Jack Upland
Muboshgu
ONUnicorn
Paper Luigi
SusanLesch		4.0 = 1 + 3.0
10BootsED
Mandruss
Necrambo
QuicoleJR
Riposte97
Slatersteven		6.0 = 6 + 0.0
11Darknipples
Hurricanehink mobile
ONUnicorn
Paper Luigi
Space4Time3Continuum2x
SusanLesch		BootsED
Necrambo
QuicoleJR		7.8 = 6 + 1.8
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey Round Two: Trump–Epstein

Round Two closes at 08:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC), at which time:

  • this entire discussion will be closed
  • a consensus list item will be added
  • the article will be updated with the consensus content
  • any amendments to the consensus content may be proposed separately
  • 24 hours after its closure, the discussion will be manually archived per consensus 13

If Round Two ends in a tie, it will remain open until the tie is broken. Sudden death overtime.

  • Question. So what happened to amendments? Three tiny changes are recorded above for #11 (1 word, 1 wikilink, and 1 punctuation mark). Mandruss, you left the door wide open for your complaints about #11, but you've given us no room to fix it. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
    Amendments come after consensi. Do you think those issues, which can be fixed by subsequent amendment(s), will prevent people from !voting for 11? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Can you please add amendments to your Round Two closes...this entire discussion will be closed... system given above? I for one am unfamiliar with your rules. Thanks in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
 Done. BTW, that amendments come after consensi is not a new thing or unique to this discussion. It's been that way for years. It's not "my rule" but an implicit local consensus, like most of the process at this article (the rest is explicit local consensus). I'm an enforcer, not a ruler—a policeman, not a dictator—and I wouldn't mind some help enforcing—or, at least, more cooperation.
The !voting that occurred in the "Versions" sections was a waste of time, as evidenced by the fact that it was ignored. The reason it was ignored was because there should be no !voting until all proposals are on the table in their final form—notwithstanding post-consensus amendments—this is what "process integrity" means in this context. It's a mistake to assume that all participants see the process through to final resolution, each visit reading everything that has happened since their previous visit. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you've spent more time on articles likely to be contentious. WP:CON tells me nothing about this. A simple link to a Wikipedia policy or guideline would suffice to help those of us without prior knowledge of your process. Do you have one? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
AFAIK, policy doesn't prohibit anything we're doing here. We have the freedom to innovate within limits, and we use it to the ultimate benefit of the article. We don't need to point to a PAG that explicitly supports it. But everything requires local majority support, either implicit or explicit. You're free to challenge any part of this, separately. It's not constructive to combine process discussion and content discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
No worries. Please don't get me wrong. I am thankful that this article has a process and people to guide it. The system is working and this article would surely be mayhem without it. I was at sea and wondered what guideline I've missed by working on safer subjects in the past. Thank you for your dedication and fortitude, Mandruss. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
This elaborate set of processes (i.e., everything, not just this) is probably only justified for articles that are highly visible, highly contentious, and highly active for a number of years. But I intend to BOLDly take most of it to the next U.S. president's BLP, which will undoubtedly pass all three tests. I suspect many of this article's regulars will join me there, so I expect most or all of my BOLD will be accepted. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Round Two proposals: Trump–Epstein

Do not !vote in this section.

10: (28 words)

Trump had a close relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which has been a subject of controversy.[35][36][37] The two men reportedly had a falling out in 2004.[38]

11: (52 words)

Trump had a 15-year friendship with Jeffrey Epstein; persons who knew them at the time said they frequently hit on and competed for women.[39] Media attention and public pressure mounted in 2025, when his administration did not release files relating to Epstein, despite Trump's promise to do so during the 2024 campaign.[40]

Round Two !voting: Trump–Epstein

!Vote for one option from the preceding section, 10 or 11. Or, !vote for both options in order of preference. Editors who have already !voted in Round One must !vote again here or they will not be counted. Round Two closes at 08:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC), at which time the consensus will be implemented as described here.

Round Two tally: Trump–Epstein

As of 18:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC). Number of !voters: 14.

Just !vote in the !voting section above. Others will take care of the update here.

Weighted !vote = N1 + (N2 x 0.6)
N1: Number of first-choice !votes
N2: Number of second-choice !votes

Prop
osal		First
choice		Second
choice		Weighted
!vote
10Jack Upland
Mandruss
QuicoleJR
Riposte97		4.0 = 4 + 0.0
11A. Randomdude0000
BootsED
Darknipples
GothicGolem29
John Bois
Mgasparin
ONUnicorn
Paper Luigi
Space4Time3Continuum2x
SusanLesch		10.0 = 10 + 0.0

References (Trump–Epstein)

References

  1. 1 2 Haberman, Maggie (January 20, 2021). "Trump Departs Vowing, 'We Will Be Back in Some Form'". The New York Times. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  2. ↑ Whaples, Robert (March 1995). "Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions" (PDF). The Journal of Economic History. 55 (1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 144. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.482.4975. doi:10.1017/S0022050700040602. JSTOR 2123771. S2CID 145691938.
  3. ↑ "The Senate Passes the Smoot-Hawley Tariff". United States Senate. Archived from the original on 20 October 2021. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  4. ↑ "Smoot-Hawley Tariff" Archived 12 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine, U.S. Department of State.
  5. ↑ Donnan, Shawn (31 March 2025). "Trump's Tariffs Set to Make History and Break a System MAGA Loathes". Bloomberg.
  6. ↑ "Tariff-induced recession risk". Goldman Sachs. Apr 21, 2025.
  7. ↑ Kelly, David (March 3, 2025). "The Trouble with Tariffs". JPMorgan.
  8. ↑ Hetzner, Christiaan (April 4, 2025). "'There will be blood': JPMorgan raises recession risk to 60% as global stock market sell off continues". Fortune.
  9. ↑ Pound, Jesse (Apr 11, 2025). "BlackRock's Larry Fink says U.S. is very close to a recession and may be in one now". CNBC.
  10. ↑ Fulwood, Alice (20 November 2024). "What Donald Trump's election means for the global economy". The Economist. Alice Fulwood is the Wall Street editor of the Economist
  11. ↑ Quinlan, Tim; House, Sarah; Grein, Shannon; Cervi, Nicole (April 4, 2025). "High Fences, Low Growth: Simulating the Latest Tariff Effects". Wells Fargo.
  12. ↑ Harring, Alex (Jul 1, 2025). "Powell confirms that the Fed would have cut by now were it not for tariffs". CNBC.
  13. ↑ Kranish & Fisher 2017, p. 48.
  14. ↑ Barrett 2016, p. 75.
  15. 1 2 Lucas, Ryan (July 7, 2025). "DOJ says no evidence Jeffrey Epstein had a 'client list' or blackmailed associates". NPR. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Feuer, Alan; Goldstein, Matthew (July 19, 2025). "Inside the Long Friendship Between Trump and Epstein". The New York Times. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Pereira, Ivan; Walsh, Kelsey (July 16, 2025). "Trump blasts 'stupid' and 'foolish' Republicans amid calls to reveal more Epstein files". ABC News. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dixon, Matt; Gomez, Henry J. (July 16, 2025). "Trump can't stop MAGA from obsessing about the Epstein files". NBC News. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  19. 1 2 3 Thomas Jr., Landon (October 28, 2002). "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery". New York magazine. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  20. 1 2 3 Romano, Aja (November 5, 2024). "The new Jeffrey Epstein tapes and his friendship with Trump, explained". Vox. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Watson, Kathryn; Walsh, Joe (July 19, 2025). "Trump files lawsuit over Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Epstein report". CBS News. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tucker, Eric; Durkin, Alanna (July 8, 2025). "Epstein 'client list' doesn't exist, Justice Department says, walking back theory Bondi had promoted". AP News. Retrieved July 21, 2025.
  23. 1 2 Coen, Susie (September 3, 2024). "Trump promises to release Epstein 'client list' if he wins the election". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2025-07-20.
  24. 1 2 "The Epstein files and Donald Trump". The Economist. July 18, 2025. Retrieved July 21, 2025. Now people like Ms Bondi and Kash Patel at the FBI have failed to produce the goods, the only plausible explanation for the conspiratorially minded is: what if Mr Trump was in on it, too?
  25. 1 2 Steakin, Will (July 17, 2025). "'It's a cover up': Musk floods X with posts attacking Trump over Epstein". ABC News. Retrieved July 21, 2025.
  26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Debusmann Jr, Bernd (July 8, 2025). "US justice department finds no Epstein 'client list'". BBC News.
  27. 1 2 3 4 Cameron, Chris (July 28, 2025). "Trump Says He Declined Epstein's Invitation to Visit His Island: 'I Never Had the Privilege of Going'". The New York Times.
  28. ↑ Unger, Craig (January 21, 2021). "'He's a Lot of Fun to Be With': Inside Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump's Epic Bromance". Vanity Fair. Cite error: Unknown parameter "name"unger"" in <ref> tag; supported parameters are dir, follow, group, name (see the help page).
  29. 1 2 Broadwater, Luke (July 18, 2025). "A Timeline of What We Know About Trump and Epstein". The New York Times.
  30. 1 2 Gabbatt, Adam (July 18, 2025). "'He's a lot of fun to be with': Trump and Epstein were close friends for 15 years". The Guardian.
  31. 1 2 3 Bisset, Victoria; Wells, Dylan (August 2, 2025). "A timeline of how the Epstein controversy became a headache for Trump". The Washington Post.
  32. ↑ Baird, Caryn (July 31, 2025). "What we know about the Trump-Epstein falling out". PolitiFact. Poynter Institute.
  33. ↑ "In audio clip from 2017, Jeffrey Epstein said he was once Trump's 'closest friend'". Times of Israel. November 3, 2024. Retrieved July 20, 2025.
  34. ↑ Cite error: Unknown parameter "name"unger"" in <ref> tag; supported parameters are dir, follow, group, name (see the help page). Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
  35. ↑ Unger, Craig (January 21, 2021). "'He's a Lot of Fun to Be With': Inside Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump's Epic Bromance". Vanity Fair.
  36. ↑ Broadwater, Luke (July 18, 2025). "A Timeline of What We Know About Trump and Epstein". The New York Times.
  37. ↑ Gabbatt, Adam (July 18, 2025). "'He's a lot of fun to be with': Trump and Epstein were close friends for 15 years". The Guardian.
  38. ↑ Feuer, Alan; Goldstein, Matthew. "Inside the Long Friendship Between Trump and Epstein". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
  39. ↑ Feuer, Alan; Goldstein, Matthew (July 19, 2025). "Inside the Long Friendship Between Trump and Epstein". The New York Times.
  40. ↑ Bisset, Victoria; Wells, Dylan (August 2, 2025). "A timeline of how the Epstein controversy became a headache for Trump". The Washington Post.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_202&oldid=1313472348"